Drama in the case of the child running over the late Raphael Adana: a traffic court in Petach Tikva ordered the annulment of the verdict of the driver Carol Fesler, who confessed and was convicted of negligence.
As I recall, Fesler, 80 years old, admitted to the crime, “but not to the mental basis for committing it.” I mean, she didn’t feel like she hit Adana with her car. Following this, the prosecutor’s office asked to cancel the conviction and hold an evidence procedure in the trial.
4-year-old Raphael Adana who was killed in an accident in Netanya, photo: courtesy of the family
Judge Tal Perry even held a special hearing on the question of whether to annul the verdict and suggested that Fasler retract it, but she remained in her position. Now, the judge decided to overturn the verdict and stated in his decision: “They are dealing with a serious offense that carries up to seven years in prison and it is fair that the accused will not be convicted in court when she does not, in practice, admit to the mental basis attributed to her.”
Judge Perry also criticized Fasler’s conduct in his decision: “In the case before me, the conduct of the accused and her defense attorney shows an attempt to exploit the criminal procedure in order to evade a fair trial. As stated above, the defense attorney claimed, and once more and once more, that he does not have any preliminary claim regarding a defect or invalidity in the indictment. The defense attorney also claims that the accused admitted to all the facts of the indictment, however, in the same breath, the defense attorney denies having committed the offense attributed to the accused in the indictment and claims that she should have been convicted of another, lesser offense.”
Rafael Adana’s parents at a demonstration in Tel Aviv (archive), photo: The struggle headquarters Tzedek LeRafael
“The system will do everything so that the Fessler family is not convicted of murder”
Rotem Toni, the Adana family’s media consultant, said: “The family is not comforted by the precedent-setting step of canceling her confession. On the contrary, the family received a final goshpanka for the combines that are being run on their backs and in Raphael’s memory. For the first time in regarding a year, we can take a breath with the confirmation that we are not crazy, But the system is rotten and corrupt. The air that our brothers take, by the way, will be used by us to renew the protest. That’s what you wanted, right? So here… you will get it.”
The family members of the late Raphael Adana met with the representatives of the prosecutor’s office and watched the documentation of the accident // Moshe Ben Simhon
Attorney Roni Aloni Sadovnik, who represents the Adana family: “The judicial system is doing everything to release Dr. Heidi Fassler and her mother from their duty to give justice for their part in causing Rafael’s death. Overturning a conviction by the same judge who convicted shows that the system will do everything so that none of the Fessler family is convicted of murder, obstructing an investigation and concealing evidence. The Adana-Tsagai family will not give up on the justice that Rafael deserves and we will prove that this case is a murder case that was deliberately messed up. When the evidence is finally revealed to the public, many eyebrows will be raised in astonishment at the cover-up of the affair. Dr. Heidi knew that her mother did not know the traffic laws, knew that she was confused and blind and required surgery on her left eye, yet she gave her a car to drive – she gave a loaded gun in the hands of a demented elderly woman and helped her following the accident to hide evidence and cover up the incident.”
The protest for the late Raphael Adana, photo: Koko
The Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, MK Moshe Solomon, said in response to the developments in the case: “During the last period, I have been accompanying the parents of the late Raphael Adana, who repeatedly vehemently claim that they are fighting once morest large forces that are doing everything to hide what happened there that Today… today we received an answer that admitting the injury, but not the negligence following the injury, was an attempt to evade justice.”
were we wrong We will fix it! If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
