sweets at grocery checkout counter 311.
(photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post)
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the appeal of a man sentenced to 15 years
in prison for attempted murder, after he tried to kill his daughters with candy
laced with insect poison during a dispute with his ex-wife.
defendant, a resident of the Negev whose identity has not been revealed to
protect the victims’ privacy, was convicted and sentenced in the Beersheba
District Court in 2009.
The defendant was separated from his wife and
seven children at the time of the attempted murder, and was angry about the
custody arrangements, the indictment said. In February 2008 the defendant’s
11-year-old son spent the night with his father and brought him a “gift” of
boiled candies coated with insect poison.
Suspecting something was amiss,
the child gave the candies to his mother, who tasted one and collapsed. She was
rushed to hospital and diagnosed with severe poisoning.
the event, the 11- year-old son told police that his father had given him the
candies and ordered him to given them to his three sisters, aged four, six and
However, when police questioned the son again seven months after the
poisoning, the child gave a different version that did not incriminate his
father. Instead, the boy testified that his father had not given him the
candies, but that he had taken them from his father’s house to try to bring his
parents back together.
The defendant appealed against the attempted
murder verdict, and argued that the child’s second version was the
His lawyers also argued that the state had failed to prove that
the candies had sufficient poison to cause the girls’ deaths.
rejecting the appeal, Justices Edna Arbel, Esther Hayut and Neal Hendel said
that the district court’s verdict was solid and that the son’s first version was
logical and consistent with the main evidence. The boy’s second version, the
justices said, was dubious and appeared to be a deliberate false version in
order to protect the defendant.
The justices also rejected the second
argument, saying that even if the poison would not have been sufficient to kill
the girls, it was still an attempt to murder them. If the defendant had sought
to prove he had no intent to kill the girls but only to cause them injury, he
should have expounded that argument in court, the Supreme Court said.