Roman Zadorov

Roman Zadorov (Ukrainian: Роман Задоров) is a Ukrainian citizen, who is serving a life sentence in Israel for the murder of Tair Rada in 2006. His prosecution and conviction are widely believed by various experts, as well as a large part of the Israeli public to be a case of framing by police, false prosecution and false conviction. Israeli Criminal Law Professor Boaz Sangero wrote: "Conviction with no real evidence". Mordechai Kremnitzer (Professor Emeritus of International Law at Hebrew University, one of the leaders of the Israel Democracy Institute) wrote:"Conduct of the prosecution is scary... the prosecution is not seeking the truth... the justice system is mostly busy protecting itself..." The case is unprecedented in positioning senior legal experts, senior forensic medical experts, the Israel Medical Association, the Ministry of Health (Israel), NGOs and the public at large against various types of wrongdoing by the justice system.

In December 2006, 13 year-old Tair Rada reportedly decided to skip the last period of that school-day. She stayed outside in the school yard with friends for a while, before going back into the high-school building to get a drink of water. She was lastly seen by several students going up a staircase leading to a mid-floor of 10th grade classes. Later that afternoon, when she failed to return home, her mother contacted the police, and a search throughout the town began. Later that evening around 7pm, she was found murdered in a locked stall in the girls' bathroom - her throat slit twice and multiple additional cuts to her face, torso, and hands.

According to news reports from the evening of the murder, the police's initial estimate was that teens from the school were involved. It was abandoned soon after.

On the night of the murder, police detained a homeless person as a suspect. 3 days later police detained the school gardener as well. both were released 2 days later due to the fact they weren't at, or near the school on that day, and their alibis were confirmed.

On December 11, police detained Zadorov, and a grueling interrogation began.

On December 19, only 2 weeks after the murder, police announced in a press conference during prime time television, on the 8pm evening news that Zadorov is held as the most likely suspect, and that he has admitted and reenacted the murder (over an hour before the reenactment was even finished). A day later, his attorney informed that he has recanted his confession.

The motive for the murder, as initially stated by the police, was insults hurled at Zadorov after he denied Tair's request for a cigarette. Both her family and friends however, stated that not only did she not smoke, but she couldn't even stand the smell of cigarettes. They also stated that rude behaviour and cursing were very uncharacteristic of her. That motive was dropped. Police later claimed that the motive was sexual abuse Zadorov suffered by female classmates when he was an 8 years old in the Ukraine, which caused a rage fit after he suffered continuous pestering by the school's students during his work, but that could not be confirmed. No alternative motive for the murder was presented by police in the indictment.

The alibi

The time of murder was initially determined to be between 1:20PM (the time Tair was last seen - going up the staircase leading to the girls' bathroom) and 1:30PM (time of the earliest testimonies of girls, who were in the bathroom - but claimed to have seen or heard nothing), though an estimated time of death was never included in the pathologist's report. However, Zadorov was at the school gate on the phone with his employer starting from 1:23:09 pm according to cellphone records, and 2 security guards saw him during that whole time span. Roman Zadorov was waiting for his employer to bring him tile cement and only went back into the school after 1:30PM. Two investigators can be seen in interrogation footage discussing the problem of Zadorov's alibi - he had not been seen by dozens of kids sitting around the route from the school gate to the staircase leading to the girls' bathroom around the time Tair was last seen going up the staircase, and students sitting near the staircase claimed they didn't see anyone following her up the staircase. The time of murder was later modified, and claimed to be between 1:30pm and 2pm. A little after 2pm Zadorov was sighted in the school cafeteria, looking calm as usual. He continued his work as usual till 5:30pm before going home.

The prosecution and police witnesses presented the time, stated by various students as being later than stated in the initial students' testimonies to police (as well as instructing student witnesses to do the same in their court testimonies), and displayed irrelevant pictures of the area around the staircase, where the students who saw Tair going up to the mid-floor were sitting, claiming that they couldn't have possibly seen her properly, nor anyone following her, to back up their claims.

Confession and Reenactment

Both Roman Zadorov's purported confession and the reenactment included false and incorrect information, including, but not limited to the location of the murder, the way the murder was committed, the position in which the body was found. Incorrect details (including ones only the murderer should have known) can be seen, being taught to Roman Zadorov by the investigators according to what they believed at the time, in the interrogation footage (a reason crucial details were never even mentioned in the confession and reenactment). The reenactment video can be easily revealed to be heavily staged. Zadorov can be seen leading officers towards the wrong bathroom in the upper floor, before being stopped midway by a detective tinkering with the handcuffs, then being led to the correct bathroom. The throat slashing can be seen exhibited on the wrong side of the victim's body. Seven (7) blows to the head were never mentioned (the autopsy report, which revealed the hemorrhage focal points on the head, was obtained only after the reenactment). A post mortem slash to the left wrist can be seen displayed as a defense wound to the back of the right wrist. Exiting from the bathroom stall, was initially reenacted as simply walking away, before Zadorov was ordered to reenact it at a later time, bracing the walls on both sides of the bathroom stall and leaping over the locked door. However, partial foot prints (which did not match Zadorov) found on the toilet seat, the toilet tank, and the wall between bathroom stalls no. 2 and 3 suggest that jumping to the next over stall, not over the door, was the killer's escape route.

DNA

Initially, the Israel Police leaked to the press that DNA samples from the crime scene were matched with Zadorov's.

DNA and other "mounting evidence" were also cited by the Judge when remanding Zadorov in custody, as presented to him by a secret police report, a notorious method used by the Israeli police to be granted with custody remands through false, or non-existing evidence that no one but the judge can view, that the defence cannot dispute. Later, the indictment was filed with no DNA evidence linking Zadorov to the crime, as none were found.

Israeli media reported following the filing of the indictment:

Roman Zadorov may have been indicted on suspicion of killing 13 year-old Katzrin student Tair Rada based on a DNA sample which police failed to produce...

The State Prosecution explained the filing of the indictment with no DNA evidence or laboratory test results as follows:

The fact that the prosecution filed an indictment based on substantial evidence that exists implicating Zadorov without waiting for the U.S. lab results show there is sufficient evidence tying him to the murder, and the case isn't based wholly on that issue.

Eventually, the claim of a DNA match to Zadorov was dropped. Israeli Police never tried to match DNA samples from the scene to anyone else but Tair and Zadorov.

Shoe imprints

Shoe imprints, found in the blood in the bathroom stall, matched youth-size shoes (though they did not match Tair's). The imprints were much smaller than shoes that Roman Zadorov could possibly wear. Neither the police nor the prosecution attributed them to anyone else. No reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison.

The police and the prosecution claimed in court that blood stains on Tair's pants were Zadorov's shoe imprints. However, in court they presented grossly modified images of the evidence to support their claims.

UK shoe imprint expert Dr. Guy Cooper testified in 2009 that the stains could not be considered Zadorov's shoe imprints, if shoe imprints at all. His testimony was dismissed by the Court.

FBI veteran, shoe imprint expert William Bodziak, also claimed in his 2013 testimony that these stains could not be determined to be Zadorov's shoe imprints, if shoe imprints at all. His testimony was also dismissed by the Court.

Another opinion of the same Israel Police shoe imprint expert has been recently rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court in another false murder conviction case.

Hairs

Dozens of long dark hairs were discovered in the murder scene, including over a dozen in Tair's hand. They did not match Roman Zadorov, and several did not match Tair either. There are at least 3 hairs known to match neither Tair, nor Roman Zadorov, and these hairs did not match each other either. No reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison.

Fingerprints

Over 60 fingerprints were found in the murder scene, some in blood. None matched Tair or Roman Zadorov. Neither the police nor the prosecution ever explained their origin. No reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison.

Other biological evidence

A total of 150 biological samples from the crime scene were tested, but none matched Zadorov. No reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison.

Murder weapon

The murder weapon, according to the confession and reenactment was a smooth-blade utility knife. However, it was never found. In his purported confession, Roman Zadorov said that he had placed it under the tiles that he had been laying that day. The tiles were removed, but the knife was never found. Moreover, two senior forensic medical experts later testified that the murder was committed using a serrated blade, not a smooth-blade, based on the nature of the cut on Tair's chin. Their testimonies were dismissed by the Court as irrelevant.

According to several forensic medical experts' opinion, the murder was committed by a left-handed person, while Roman Zadorov is right-handed. The prosecution dismissed the opinions as irrelevant.

Cellular devices

Existing evidence makes it obvious that Roman Zadorov on the one hand, and youths who according to their own testimonies were present in the bathroom around the murder time on the other hand, all carried cellular devices. It is also obvious that police has access to a database that would make it possible to ascertain the time and location of these devices. However, police never presented the data in court, and the Defense never asked for it.

Other

All of Roman Zadorov's effects were tested, but none showed positive results for blood. Nothing else connecting Roman Zadorov to the murder scene, or vice versa, other than the contested shoe imprints were ever found.

Tair had been on bad terms with some girls in the high school for several years prior to the murder. According to testimonies, she was under social boycott by certain girls in the school for some 3 years. In the days prior to the murder she expressed in school fear for her life. Earlier, she had also asked to be switched classes.

According to testimonies by teachers, students in the high school had prepared posters on the day following the murder, which said, "Tair, your day has come!"

Media report in the early days after the murder criticize the Israel Police for searching for the murderer through the vast areas of the Golan Heights and the Galilee, instead of focusing on suspects within the school building itself. The same report even goes as far as suggesting that the Israel Police should start from the students' online chat room. Indeed, the chat room included notes by students, who claimed to have information about the murder, who claimed that threats were issued against anybody who would cooperate with police...

One of the students later testified in Court that she saw under the bathroom stall, where the murder was committed, Tair's Puma shoes, youth-size Allstar shoes and blood. Another student's testimony implied that she knew more, "but repressed it"... Yet another student stated that "at our age, we don't tell on others"...

A long list of students went through the bathroom around the murder time, while Tair apparently struggled with the murderers, and some of them even noticed highly suspicious circumstances, but none ever said a word to anyone.

In police investigation and in court testimonies later on, it was again stated that word was spread immediately after the murder among the high school students that anybody who would say anything about the murder would suffer consequences. No effort was made by police to follow up on such critical matters. During the trial, even the Nazareth District Court reprimanded the Israel Police for failing to follow up on investigation of a student, who stated that there were students who knew, who the murderers were...

Tair's mother stated on various occasions that she didn't believe that Roman Zadorov was the murderer, and that she believe that the true murderers were "from Tair's world". At other times, she alluded more directly that the murderers were high school students.

Online social network groups, who support Roman's cause, published the names of the students, who were most closely involved in the affair, and also information about close family relations of some of them with both senior and junior Israel Police personnel. Israel Police took action to remove such references from the social networks.

Claims were made that the information published online and by media, amounted to persecution of the girls. In May 2016, an attorney representing two of the female students, Nufar Ben David and Lee Lahyani issued a letter to leaders of Roman Zadorov's support groups a "warning prior to filing a lawsuit" letter, demanding an apology, adequate monetary compensation, and a promise to cease defamatory publication. In response, recipients of the demands and threat published on June 4, 2016 a statement, rejecting the demands, saying that they would be happy to be sued, since it would finally provide an opportunity to review the before a court the evidence and the validity of their claims.

In a 2016 interview, Ilana Rada, Tair's mother, recounted events of December 19, 2006, referring to a female student, who was a relative of a senior law enforcement figure:

You embrace the police, you trust them, you see them as family. During the Shiva [ritual seven mourning days] police briefed us, took me to show me the progress in the investigation. Already then I heard things, which were related to conduct of various involved persons, like the youths and others. I went along with it... I picked up the phone and called the investigation team and asked them to come over. They came, and the atmosphere was relaxed. I inquired regarding their working methods in the investigation. How they narrowed down a large body of evidence and numerous individuals who were investigated to anything that could allow them to focus and resolve the mystery. They explained to me that it was all focused on Tair's class, the dance classes, and her age group in school. They explained to me that they investigated day and night every male and female student, and anybody who was involved in any manner. Then I named one of the female students, "A", and then all of a sudden quiet. They asked, 'who is she?', and then the most senior investigator got up and asked me if I had visited a medium... then they got up with unease. 'Let us go and check'. And this was after they had boasted that they had investigated anything that moved. How come you have never checked this girl, who was in the dance class and the same age group in school? Not a word was mentioned regarding Zadorov. I had no idea that a murder suspect had been detained. Police left, and two hours later a photojournalist arrived, who told us that the murderer had been caught. I did not believe it. I told him that the investigation team had just left my house, and that they never said anything about it. The photojournalist says to me: 'At 6:00pm you are invited to a town-hall meeting, and at 8:00 pm there is a press conference, and Zadorov murdered your daughter.' I told him: 'Where is this delusional story coming from? You are relying on rumors'. I was shocked. I wanted to bury myself.

Trial commenced in January 2007 with the filing of the indictment in the Nazareth District Court, followed by the September 2010 initial conviction, October 2010 filing of Zadorov's appeal in the Supreme Court of Israel, March 2013 remand to the Nazareth District Court for additional review of the evidence, and February 2014 supplemental judgment by the Nazareth District Court- again convicting Zadorov. On December 23, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court denied Zadorov's appeal by a 2 to 1 decision of a panel of three justices. Zadorov's team immediately asked for a new hearing by an expanded panel.

No signed confession was filed with the indictment. Zadorov refused to sign the confession, dictated by police. However, police officers testified that he confessed in investigation that he had committed the murder. Zadorov continued to deny any confession throughout the trial.

No motive for the murder was provided in the indictment.

The 456 page, September 2010 conviction by a three-judge panel headed by Judge Yitzhak Cohen - then Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District Court – was read out in a dramatic open court hearing. It stated that there was no doubt that Zadorov was the murderer, and that his testimony was full of lies and manipulations. Therefore, Zadorov was further convicted on obstruction police investigation. The lack of any motive for the murder was found no object by the judges.

However, to this date neither the authentic September 2010 Conviction nor the authentic September 2010 Sentencing records of the Nazareth District Court have been discovered. The conviction record is entirely missing from the Nazareth Court's electronic case management system, and the sentencing record, which appears in the system, is missing the signature of Judge Haim Galpaz. Furthermore, neither the Conviction nor the Sentencing record was duly entered in the Court's "Judgments Docket".

Inspection of the paper court file (original records) of the Supreme Court appeal case revealed that no authentic judgment records of the Nazareth District Court was filed with the Notice of Appeal, in disregard of the law. Top defense lawyer Avigdor Feldman, who joined the case pro bono in 2014, late in the appeal process, and who is known for his dark humor, wrote in December 2015, while the appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court, that "remnants of the judgment records were scattered in the wind across the Jezreel Valley" (which Nazareth overlooks).

Arrest Decree, which is required by Israeli law for the admission of a convict into prison, following a prison sentence, is also missing from the Nazareth District Court file.

In March 2013, the Supreme Court of Israel remanded the case back to the Nazareth District Court for rehearing of evidence by expert witnesses, as requested by Zadorov's lawyers:

• William Bodziak, a world-renowned forensics expert - regarding the footprint found on the clothes of the murdered girl, and
• Dr. Maya Forman-Reznik, a pathologist - regarding the murder weapon and the trauma injuries found on her head.

Key evidence, related to the murder knife and shoe imprints, key issues in this case, were not settled.

Following the March 2013 remand of the case by Supreme Court of Israel to the Nazareth District Court, the Jerusalem Post published a special editorial, saying in part:

The court's intervention must be welcomed by all Israelis who care to see justice served – and that without presuming to opine on Zadorov's guilt or innocence. From the outset too much in this case aroused extreme discomfort about both police and prosecution conduct. Their strident opposition to reviewing the case, despite the possibility that exculpatory evidence might be presented, should in itself prompt more than a few troubling questions... The heightened publicity intensified the ambition of officers and prosecutors to "produce results" and score prestige points. The three judges who convicted Zadorov in 2010 fully subscribed to the prosecution's version and ascribed ostensible uncertainties to doubts sown tendentiously by "irresponsible journalists." But focus on the press is too facile. The police is hardly innocent. It and the prosecution are serially the most egregious of leakers. Often we learn of what transpired during interrogations while suspects are still being grilled. In the Rada case, the police had only itself to blame for the prodigious innuendo exacerbated by its one-sided leaks and the paucity of supporting physical evidence... In the Zadorov instance, too many doubts have lingered, including the problematic confession and reenactment by a suspect who barely spoke Hebrew. The handling of forensic evidence was sloppy in the extreme and some potentially critical clues were altogether neglected because of fixation on Zadorov. Worst of all was the jarring refusal by the prosecution to take account of exculpatory DNA evidence and to reevaluate other apparent gaps in its forensic data. That never seemed to square with elementary fairness. In the final analysis, the buck stops with the police. Trustworthy academic studies indicate that in this country, whenever police investigators deem someone guilty, the odds are even higher than elsewhere that person will not get off. In major felony trials, judges accept the police premise 98 percent of the time. This puts special onus on both policemen and prosecutors to clean up their acts.

In February 2014, the Nazareth District Court returned a supplemental judgment, again convicting Zadorov. The Nazareth District Court rejected international expert opinions, which contradicted the Israel Police expert, relative to the matching of a shoe imprint on the victim's pants with Zadorov's shoe. The Israel Police expert showed in court modified images to justify his opinion. One of the international experts said it could not even be clearly identified as a shoe imprint. The other said it could not be identified as Zadorov's shoe imprint. The purported shoe imprint was the only physical evidence, purportedly tying Zadorov to the murder.

In January 2014, prior to the issuance of the supplemental judgment, senior criminal law professor Boaz Sangero wrote: "When will Roman Zadorov be acquitted?" Sangero notes in part:

The [original] judgment is unconvincing relative to the guilt of the defendant. The conviction was primarily based on a problematic confession and on the testimony of a policeman, who is considered an expert on shoe imprints, who claimed that there was a match between Zadorov's show and the shoe imprtint on the victim's pants. As I showed, Zadorov's confession had the typical traits of a false confession...

In February 2014, following the supplemental judgment, Professor Sangero further stated in media interviews: "I cannot explain Zadorov's repeat conviction". Such lack of deference to the judgment of the court by a law professor is unprecedented in Israel.

The December 23, 2015 denial of the appeal by the Supreme Court of Israel was rendered by a 2:1 split panel. The Jerusalem Post summed up the controversy and the Supreme Court's decision as follows:

The case captivated the media and public. It was a tragic, small-town murder that, from the beginning, was dogged by rumors, including that local teenagers had killed Rada and the town or teachers had covered it up, finding an easy fall guy in Zadorov, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union... The 300-page majority opinion upholding the conviction on Wednesday, which included justices Isaac Amit and Zvi Zylbertal, found three major grounds for its decision, despite the disputes over the shoe prints and the knife. Aspects of Zadorov's confession while under arrest to a confidential informant, of his confession to interrogators and his participation in reenacting aspects of the crime were decisive, wrote the court.

The Supreme Court's denial of the appeal failed to settle the case. Zadorov's team immediately asked for a new hearing by an expanded panel, a process that is yet to commence (January 2016). Public support for Zadorov tripled within days following the Supreme Court's decision.

The Zadorov court file in the Nazareth District Court was administered from 2007-2009 as a paper court file, and from January 2010 on as an electronic court file. However, as of June 2016:

• Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham of the Nazareth District Court denies access to inspect the electronic signature execution data, without providing any reasoning, while in other cases in recent years, judges were documented issuing sham/simulated decision records, which are electronically unsigned, and therefore are invalid on their face.
• The Supreme Court denies access to inspect the Nazareth District Court paper decisions (original records, which the Supreme Court now holds), with the reasoning of a "jumble" in the paper court file, while in other cases judges were documented issuing sham/simulated decision records, which are missing hand-signatures, and therefore are invalid on their face.

Such conduct by the Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court disregards the Regulations of Inspection (2003), which provide that "any person is permitted to inspect decisions that are not prohibited for publication by law", and the 2009 Judgment of the Supreme Court in the petition Association of Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97), which declared the right to inspect decision records "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime... constitutional, super-statutory..." Such conduct by the Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court raises concerns that the judiciary is engaged in withholding evidence of the scope of Fraud Upon the Court in the Nazareth District Court trial.

The case of Roman Zadorov raised the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, lack of oversight of the State Prosecution, false convictions in general, and reluctance of the Israeli courts to reverse false convictions.

By September 2014, Presiding Judge Yitzhak Cohen of the Nazareth District Court, who twice convicted Zadorov, left on vacation, and by November 2014 he resigned, after police recommended his prosecution for sex crimes in chambers against a female attorney and sex crimes against minors.

In parallel, Justice Minister Livni ordered investigation against senior figures in the Israel Police and State Prosecution relative to suspicions of cover-up of Judge Cohen suspected sex crimes. Credit for exposing the case, while Cohen was a candidate for a Supreme Court Justice was given to social media.

Media later reported that Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein instructed Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel to stop the cover-up investigation.

As of this date (June 2016) the State Prosecution has failed to file an indictment in the case of Judge Yitzhak Cohen. Based on past performance, it is doubted that such indictment would ever be filed. Regardless of ample evidence of widespread judicial corruption, and evidence of other types of criminality by judges, during Israel's close to 70-year history, no judge has ever been convicted on crimes committed during his tenure as a judge, and only one judge was prosecuted for corruption (in the 1960s).

Regarding the Zadorov affair, Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote in October 2014: "Conduct of the prosecution is scary... the State Prosecution is not seeking the truth... the justice system is mostly busy protecting itself..." His comments were published in the wake of the Tel-Aviv Labor Court judgment in the lawsuit of senior forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman against the State of Israel, Ministry of Health and others. Her case became an entirely separate scandal, which was described by Israeli media as persecution, settlement of accounts, and a retaliation campaign by Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan against Dr Forman for her professional, honest, expert testimony in the Zadorov affair.

The State Prosecution first fought to prevent Dr Forman from testifying in the Nazareth court in Roman Zadorov's case. Dr Forman eventually testified for Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court, and her expert testimony, that the murder was committed using a serrated knife, not a smooth-edged Japanese knife, as claimed by the State Prosecution, and as purportedly confessed by Zadorov, dealt a major blow to the State Prosecution case. It undermined the integrity of both the contested "confession" and reconstruction. Review of the evidence regarding the knife was a central issue in the March 2013 remand to the Nazareth District Court.

In its February 2014 supplemental judgment the Nazareth District Court not only rejected Dr Forman's expert testimony, but also heavily criticized her professional conduct. In the aftermath, Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, who claimed that he was backed by Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, tried to impose professional restrictions on Dr Forman and to prohibit her from further appearances in courts as an expert witness – effectively crippling her professional employment.

The labor dispute became an unprecedented scandal in its own sake, with the Israeli Medical Association joining as a friend of the court, strongly supporting Dr Forman. Moreover, while the Israeli Ministry of Health was named Defendant in the labor dispute, Minister of Health Yael German wrote a public letter to the Attorney General, stating that his conduct against Dr Forman "lacks legal foundation and carries overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the fundamentals of law and justice..."

The case in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court then generated another separate scandal, when the State Prosecution tried to solicit an affidavit in support of its position from another senior forensic medical expert in the State Forensic Institute, Dr Chen Kugel. Dr Kugel provided the State Prosecution a curve-ball affidavit, which for the first time disclosed that he also supported Dr Forman's professional opinion that the murder was committed using a serrated knife. Dr Kugel never testified in the Nazareth District Court trial. However, the State Prosecution made false representations to the Court, suggesting that Kugel supported the Prosecution's position regarding the knife. It was even relied upon in the Conviction. Dr Kugel's affidavit in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court also strongly objected to any professional restrictions on an expert, i.e., Dr Forman, who provided an honest professional opinion in court, as a dangerous precedent.

The State Prosecution first tried to gag Dr Kugel, and prevent his affidavit from being filed. Then, the State Prosecutoin tried to heavily edit his affidavit. Eventually, Dr Kugel's affidavit was filed, unmodified, both in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court and in Zadorov's appeal in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, both the original affidavit and the edited affidavit, proposed by the State Prosecution, were published, causing a new wave of criticism against the State Prosecution: Experts raised concerns that the Prosecution's conduct relative to Dr Kugel's affidavit amounted to tampering with a witness.

In the wake of Dr Forman victory in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court, senior law professor and former dean of the Hebrew University Law School Yoav Dotan wrote: "Dr Forman and Mr Nitzan". In his opinion article, Prof Dotan emphasized the wider implications of the entire affair, which undermined due process. Prof Dotan also criticized the extreme concentration of power by the State Prosecution and its lack of accountability, supporting the ongoing calls for a major reform in the offices of Attorney General and Chief State Prosecutor.

The Dr Formal and Dr Kugel scandals expanded into a heated debate over integrity, or lack thereof in conduct of the State Prosecution, the lack of accountability for wrongdoing by the State Prosecution, and resistance of the State Prosecution to any civilian oversight.

Also In the wake of Dr Forman victory in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court, in December 2015, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel, issued a scathing report, effectively finding that the State Prosecution engaged in tampering with witnesses and perverting/obstruction of justice. Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan objected to Gerstel's report, claiming that Gerstel overstepped her authority.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein issued an opinion, supporting Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, State's right to change officials' affidavits. In this case - change the affidavit of a State employee, who is a forensic expert, appearing in criminal murder litigation or a murder case...

Based on Gerstel's report, criminal complaints were filed in December 2015 by the Israeli Governance and Democracy Movement (NGO) against senior State Prosecution and Ministry of Justice officers, alleging tampering with a witnesses and attempt to pervert and obstruct justice. There is no evidence that the criminal complaints were duly processed.

Also in December 2015, Dr Hen Kugel, by then Director of the State Forensic Institute, stated in an interview with media: "I am intimidated by the State Prosecution",

The case also raised again the issue of lack of integrity in the State Forensic Medical Institute before Dr Forman and Dr Kugel joined it. Prof Sangero wrote: "For decades the Israel Police and the State Prosecution dominated the Institute. Monopoly of police and the prosecution over scientific evidence has been established, and the evidence has been used almost exclusively to support convictions."

Partly in the wake of the Dr Forman and Dr Kugel affairs, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel conducted a review of the relationships between the State Prosecution and the State Forensic Institute, and generated a report, which was due for publication in April 2016. However, in late March 2016, 11 senior prosecutors filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking to prohibit the publication of the report, claiming that it would "damage their reputation".

Following Commissioner Gerstel's report, regarding conduct of the State Prosecution, relative to the Dr Kugel affidavit, attempt was made to conduct an ethics complaint procedure against three senior State Prosecution attorneys by the Israel Bar Association. In May 2016, Attorney Avichai Mandelblit (who by then replaced Yehuda Weinstein in that office) used his authority and blocked the Bar complaint process.

Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel's review of conduct of the State Prosecution, related to the Zadorov affair, generated ever growing tension between her and the State Prosecution. In December 2015, Commissioner Gerstel issued a letter, which was described by media "rare in its severity", stating that Chief State Prosecutor "is not saying the truth", and that his report to the Attorney General, regarding the Dr Forman affair was full of falsifications and untruths.

On April 4, 2016, a few days after filing the petition to block the publication of Commissioner Gerstel's report regarding the State Prosecution-Forensic Institute relationships, the State Prosecutors' Union declared a strike for an indefinite period, protesting the authority of Commissioner Gerstlel to oversee their conduct.

On April 18, 2016, facing the State Prosecutors' strike and the petition, and realizing that she had no sufficient backing from Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Commissioner Gerstel resigned. By June 2016, Chair of the State Prosecutors' Union referred in an interview to Commissioner Gerstel as "a pirate", the Commissioner's report on the Forensic Institute has not been published, and fate of the petition, as well as the future of the office of Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight are unclear.

In an early June 2016 appearance before the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee in a hearing regarding the future of the Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, and referring also to Attorney General Mandelblit's blocking of the Israel Bar Association review of conduct of senior State Prosecutors, relative to the attempt to pervert Dr Kugel's affidavit, senior law professor and former Justice Minister Daniel Friedman stated in a June 2016 "The Attorney General cannot gag the entire State, and not let anybody voice an opinion".

The victim's parents, whose representative, a private investigator and former police officer, was permitted to inspect the complete evidence in this case, did not believe that Roman is the murderer. Already in early 2007 the parents filed a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court, asking for re-opening of the murder investigation, and claiming that conduct of the Israel Police was "extremely unreasonable" in this case. The petition was summarily denied.

In 2010, Tair's mother told media: "As far as I'm concerned, anything to do with the court, the prosecution and the police is pure delinquency. They abandoned my daughter." On various other occasions she explicitly stated that she believed that her daughter was killed by students in the school.

In 2011, investigators Haim Sadovsky and Doron Beldinger filed a petition with the Supreme Court, also asking that the Supreme Court mandate re-opening of the police investigation in this case. Their petition was also denied.

In December 2014, a group of activists, who closely followed the case, filed with the Attorney General criminal complaints against the Israel Police investigation team for obstruction of the investigation and fabrication of evidence, and separately against the State Prosecution team - for fraud in the court.

In December 2015, Ombudswoman of the Prosecution, retired Judge Hila Gerstel issued a decision, stating that Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan failed for a year to investigate the complaint against the prosecution, which alleged fraud in the courts.

Unprecedented public support for Roman's cause in Israel is expressed in the tens of thousands of citizens, who are registered in online support groups, routinely follow the case, published and discussed the evidence and conduct of the justice system, and call true investigation of Tair's murder.

The Nazareth District Court 2014 supplemental judgment was also unusual in its criticism of media coverage in this case. There is no doubt that media coverage in this case was central in exposing the ludicrous conduct of the Israeli Police, the State Prosecution, and the courts themselves. Ongoing TV, radio, and print coverage of the case are unprecedented, both in scope and in the manner in which they openly challenge of the courts.

The prosecution hoped that the denial of the appeal in December 2015 would bring to an end public criticism. However, the effect of the denial of the appeal in December 23, 2015 was paradoxical. Within 24–48 hours, public support for Zadorov approximately tripled. By mid January, 2016, in a nation of 8 millions, there are almost 250,000 members in online Zadorov Support groups (one Facebook group alone - "All the Truth regarding the Murder of Tair Rada" - had a member count of 214,445 on January 9, 2016), and demonstrations were held in Tel-Aviv central square in support of justice for Roman Zadorov and renewed investigation of Tair Rada's murder. An international Avaaz petition was launched, calling upon Israeli President Rivlin to pardon on commute Zadorov's sentence. The petition was endorsed by notable US Rabbi Michael Lerner (rabbi), by notable US public intellectual Prof Noam Chomsky, and by veteran FBI agent and whistle-blower Coleen Rowley.

In a mid January 2016 Knesset oversight committee hearing it was exposed that the Israel Police obtained a court decree and tried to confiscate all materials obtained by Arutz 7 investigative journalism program "Uvdah" regarding misconduct in the State Forensic Institute. According to "Uvdah" journalist Omri Essenheim, a policeman had appeared in their editorial offices and demanded to obtain any materials that had been collected as part of their investigative journalism work relative to conduct of the State Forensic Institute. The editorial staff refused to comply with police demands. Mr Essenheim added: "In the Zadorov affair the State Prosecution acted contrary to its stated mission of seeking the truth."

In early 2016, a four-part TV series was aired, "Shadow of the Truth", reviewing the Tair Rada murder/Roman Zadorov conviction affair. It caused a major media storm. Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan stated in a widely reported public appearance that media conduct in this case was "a danger to democracy".