Talk:Killing of Aisha al-Rabi

DNA as evidence
See article from Ha'aretz for example of one of the problems with using DNA as evidence
 * Proof if anything that I have to revert you for (a) refusing to admit what the sources stated (b) using a dated article from 2009 to challenge the Shin Bet's conclusion in 2018, accepted by the defendant and the court, that his DNA was on the stone. The indicted youth simply said he had an explanation as to how it got there.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCRIME, this should be excluded here and not stated as fact. This is "touch DNA" (not a normal sample) and the forensics involved are being challenged in court (method, chain of custody of the rock, and incidental touch DNA samples in the area from boys who study nearby). I will further note that the inline citation did not support the content cited to it .Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quote the exact passage in WP:BLPCRIME which rules out using sources describing the ascertained forensic evidence, corroborated by the court, and provided by the Shin Bet. The sources state that the DNA is of the minor, that he finally gave an explanation of how his DNA got onto the rock that killed the woman. All of your remarks are personal guesses, and one is patently absurd. 'chain of custody of the rock'. The DNA was found on the rock that killed her: 'custody' in legal terms refers to the transmission of an object used as evidence from the site of the crime to the forensic laboratory. In that 'chain', the boy wasn't present.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say the prosecution alleges. Newsweek states:
 * "The charges were widely expected after it emerged in court yesterday that the teenager’s DNA had been found on the rock that had struck Rabi in the head and ended her life."
 * What is alleged is that this boy threw the rock, not that his DNA was on it. The defense will argue that yes, it's his DNA, but he didn't throw it.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The court did not rule on the DNA. Various courts (e.g. during remand) allowed the prosecutor to publish (as there was (and is due to minor status) a gag order) that DNA was in evidence. Chain of custody (where the rock was until it got to authorities + external lab) is an issue here. In any event - absent a court ruling - BLPCRIME has us: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". The home arrest release is also an indication of weakness of evidence here. In any event - there is no court ruling here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva
Please keep this off the page. It suppressed key information of dissent contained in the mainstream reports and is also cited as stating: "In May 2019, the juvenile was released to house arrest after a forensic report submitted to the court concluded that al-Rabi's injuries were not consistent with being hit by the stone" Well he didn't say that, he said: "In searching the professional literature, there was no case found in which such broad wounds [found on the victim] were the result of one strike of a stone." The Times of Israel also reports: "The Lod District Court ordered a one-day delay in the release of the Israeli teen to house arrest, which had been scheduled by the court for Tuesday, in order to give the prosecution more time to appeal the decision. Hours later, the prosecution announced that it would indeed file an objection." His release was scheduled for yesterday, but postponed until today so that the prosecution could file an appeal. So one should not be swooping down on statements until one has at least a day or two to evaluate them given breaking news should be handled with care, and waiting a day to get perspective important.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll note that forensics report was a "developing story" (initial news reports in multiple outlets did not report all the details) - we should use news items from the end of the cycle, not from the beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I noted it was a developing story, and I noted that Arutz Sheva despite having Chen Kugel's statement at hand in which he notes his view was shared by 2 of 7 colleagues, was suppressed from their redaction. The mainstream papers did not. That is an nth example of why Arutz Sheva is unreliable.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The item that comes from them now - - contains ""Two other doctors believed that, based on the data presented to us, the quality of the imperfect images and the relatively undetailed description in the opinion, it is impossible to decide either way." - it does contain the dissent between the coroners. Arutz7 (as well as Walla, YNET, Haaretz, etc.) - pushed out a whole bunch of items - the early ones (on all of them) - were incomplete - the contents of Kugel's report (as opposed to its existence and headline result) showed up later in the cycle - in the beginning they were all reporting according to the headliner of the forensics report. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source for anything besides what the settler movement believes.  nableezy  - 17:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing cite

 * Shin Bet suspected that the attackers came from the school because of an alleged lack of cooperation on its part, and because the previous day, the students allegedly blocked Highway 60 near the site of the incident, in protest of a Palestinian attack against Israelis, near a military base in the West Bank.

I could not find it in any source so I took it out.ImTheIP (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)