Forensic Evidence Reignites Debate in Tair Rada Murder Libel Trial

Dr. Chen Kogel, head of the Israeli Forensic Medicine Institute, testified in the libel lawsuit filed by Ola Kravchenko, revisiting a pivotal forensic finding in the Tair Rada murder case. He emphasized the significance of mitochondrial DNA evidence linking suspect Adir Havni to the crime scene, describing it as the first forensic proof connecting an individual to the victim's location. Kogel noted that after the finding was confirmed, the prosecution's attitude toward the forensic institute shifted, with decreased communication and diminished valuation of the evidence, which he criticized.

Kogel also addressed the nature of the wounds on Tair Rada's body, asserting with confidence that at least some injuries were caused by a serrated blade, based on high-resolution images showing parallel marks consistent with such a knife. He dismissed claims of bite marks on the victim, explaining that absence of visible marks does not rule out biting due to various factors. Regarding a neck wound, Kogel concluded it involved at least three separate knife strokes but could not determine the assailant's handedness.

He further testified that a cut on the victim's wrist was inflicted postmortem, indicating the body was mutilated after death. Kogel stated there was no evidence the body was moved at the scene except for minor adjustments by rescuers during CPR. He confirmed that 18 hair samples were tested, with 17 matching Rada and one matching Havni after full sequencing. Kogel criticized attempts to downplay the evidence's importance by suggesting it could match thousands of people, stressing that Israel convicts based on other less statistically precise evidence.

Throughout his lengthy testimony, Kogel maintained professional caution, refusing to speculate on the murderer's identity or discuss knife suitability without laboratory analysis. The defense sought to use his expert opinions to support their claims, while the prosecution challenged the weight and conclusions of his findings. The court adjourned without resolving these disputes, with further evidence hearings scheduled after the judicial recess.