Was the suspect not at the scene at all? The development in the investigation of Shai Yurkevich's murder
At a hearing at the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court, the defense attorney for the suspect in the murder of Shai Yurkevich, Ohana, argued that his client could not have been at the scene because he was under house arrest in another case. The police responded that the question is not decisive, as the suspicion involves involvement in events leading to the murder, not necessarily the actual shooting. The judge extended the remand by four days and ordered the police to strengthen the evidence.
At a hearing held today (Thursday) at the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court, the suspect in the murder of Shai Yurkevich, Ohana, was brought before Judge Itai Harmelin. The police presented investigation materials and confidential reports and requested to keep him in custody. The police representative, Chief Warrant Officer Attorney Israel Sionov, described the incident as "very serious" and emphasized that the investigation was conducted under the radar. During the hearing, an unusual claim was raised by the defense attorney, Attorney Ronen Revi: Ohana could not have been at the murder scene because at that time he was under house arrest in another case. The police were not impressed by the claim. The representative of the investigating unit confirmed that the matter had not yet been examined but clarified that the question of where Ohana was at the time of the shooting is not decisive. According to him, "Even if he claims an alibi, I can tell you that it doesn't matter. Since we attribute to him involvement in the murder, even if he was not present at the scene." The central suspicion, therefore, does not focus on who actually carried out the shooting, but on possible involvement in the events leading to the murder and attempted murder. It also emerged that Ohana claimed in his investigation that he does not know Yurkevich and Masrawa, but the investigators believe otherwise. The police representative confirmed that Ohana knows the person who allegedly harmed the two, and that the suspect himself admitted to this. During the hearing, a financial background was revealed: the defense attorney claimed that Ohana was subjected to extortion by various parties and even transferred money. The police representative refrained from explicitly defining this as extortion but said that the investigation "includes all this mess." The defense seeks to disconnect the fact that Ohana knows some of those involved from responsibility for the murder. Attorney Revi argued that his client, a father of three with no criminal record, was under pressure. According to him, it is possible that Ohana referred a person he knew to meet with the victims, but this does not prove that he ordered them to be harmed. At the end of the hearing, the parties agreed on a shorter remand extension than the police had requested. Judge Harmelin extended the remand by four days, until August 23, and conveyed a clear message: "The police are asked to strengthen the evidence by the next hearing."