After the photo shocked the country - now it is revealed what happened during Agam Tsarfi's video call: "It's just a smile"

This photo is expected to be one of the images that will accompany the Binyahu Razi murder case for a long time: Agam Tsarfi, 19, is seen in a video call, placing her hand on her face and smiling. On the other side of the screen is Shilat, inside the apartment where the fatal confrontation would unfold shortly thereafter.

From the perspective of those seeking to attribute a central role in the events to Tsarfi, that smile might seem chilling. Attorney Omri Stern, who represents Tsarfi along with attorney Roi Politi on behalf of the Public Defender's Office, asks to read this frame quite differently. "What you see there is not a smile stemming from some devilish, vengeful evil," he says. "It is just a facial expression of embarrassment. That is what you see — embarrassment, surprise. And this is definitely not the moment of the murder, not the moment of the attack." According to him, at the stage that was documented, a conversation was still taking place with Binyahu, and the violence had not yet begun.

This perhaps illustrates best the battle currently developing around Tsarfi's character. The same moments, the same people, and the same photos — but two completely different interpretations. While the prosecution seeks to examine her involvement within the totality of events that led to the murder, the defense paints a young woman who, according to them, was caught in a situation that spiraled out of control — without planning it and without wanting the result.

Three-year relationship

To understand her version, Stern returns to the relationship between Tsarfi and Binyahu Razi. According to him, the two were in a relationship for about three years, with breakups, reunions, and quite a few fights. Tsarfi, a 19-year-old soldier who was on leave from the IDF during the incident, is described by him as someone who came from a background that has nothing to do with the criminal world.

"She is completely normative," he says. "Serving in the IDF, was on leave from the army, comes from a normative family... Her sister serves in the Israel Police. In short, the criminal world is not known to her and she is not known to it. All in all, a completely normal girl." However, according to him, the relationship with Binyahu was far from quiet. Stern claims it was full of arguments and violence, mainly on Binyahu's part, and that Agam even filed complaints in the past. The issue of restraining orders between the two also comes up in the conversation, although the defense attorney clarifies that at this stage he cannot determine with certainty if any order was in effect precisely on the day of the incident.

What he does emphasize is that the connection between the two continued despite everything. "He did talk to her and he did meet her, and not just that weekend," he says. Stern adds that according to her, there were bruises on her face, which he claims were documented in the IDF. According to him, Agam hid a large part of what happened between her and Binyahu from her family members. "She hid a lot from the family," he says, but adds that not everything remained within the relationship: "Some of the things she also told. That is to say, she filed complaints."

---

Escaping the apartment and returning to it

According to Agam's version, during the weekend she and Shilat left the apartment after an incident in which, she claims, violence was used against them. Stern says that Tsarfi claimed they were humiliated, locked in the apartment, and prevented from leaving. From there, the two arrived at Linor Sasson. According to the defense line, here lies one of the biggest points of contention in the case: who initiated the arrival of the teenagers, and for what purpose they went back to the apartment.

Stern strongly denies the possibility that Agam recruited them to harm Binyahu. "The minors arrived on their own initiative, offered to accompany," he says. And from his perspective, the very claim that Agam managed to motivate a group of teenagers to carry out a severe attack for her requires an explanation: "None of them had a romantic connection with her... She is not their age at all, there was no acquaintance between them, nothing you can talk about."

Later he sharpens the question: "What was their interest? To come and murder someone they don't know? They don't know her either." And when the question returns to him, he replies: "I ask myself that too." From his perspective, the conclusion is clear: "She didn't want this. They acted on their own accord."

According to her version, the purpose of Agam's return was much simpler: to take items left in the apartment. Stern mentions a bag with clothes, perfume, and other items, and explains that for her, these were not insignificant items. According to him, Agam had previous experience where Binyahu destroyed her property and even broke several mobile phones. "She arrived there, in her understanding, with them to take the things, and so that they would let her take the things without locking her up or attacking her. Nothing else," he says.

But here comes the harder question: if the minors did indeed equip themselves with knives and attack tools — what did Agam know about it? Stern says her version is unequivocal: she didn't know. "She claims she didn't see the equipping," he says. The same claim also accompanies the question of planning. "I don't know of evidence that Agam is planning together with Linor, together with the other minors, and together with Shilat how they will harm him," says Stern. Does she deny that such planning existed? "Yes. Unequivocally."

---

"She heard screams"

Agam does not go up to the apartment. She remains outside, but through the video call with Shilat, she is connected to at least part of what is happening inside.

And here we return to that same photo. According to Stern, at the stage where Agam was photographed smiling, it is not yet the moment where Binyahu is being attacked. He describes a situation where the minors and Binyahu are standing and talking, and Binyahu is confronted with the claims Agam raised about the violence in the relationship. According to her version, Binyahu even apologized to her. Therefore, according to him, the smile does not indicate enjoyment of the sight of a person being attacked: "It is just a smile, a facial expression of embarrassment... And this is definitely not the moment of the murder, not the moment of the attack. After that, the murder began."

Stern adds another detail: as of the date of the conversation, to the best of his knowledge, the investigators did not confront Agam with that screenshot at all. "She was not asked about this reaction. She was not asked about it at all," he says. The claim that Agam laughed in the interrogation room after the murder also receives a denial from him: "I don't know of such a thing... I don't even think it's true."

And then the conversation changes. According to the defense version, at the stage where the attack itself begins, Agam no longer sees what is happening on the screen. "She didn't see it," says Stern. "She heard screams. She heard screams that they were attacking him." According to him, only later does she realize that an attack occurred and that Binyahu was wounded. "She claims that in the end, she realized that there was some attack and injury in the apartment," he says. "First of all, she didn't know they were equipped with knives and so on. Certainly didn't plan with them how they would harm him."

And then comes one of the questions that is harder to explain: if she already realized that someone had been stabbed and wounded — why didn't she call MADA? Why didn't she call the police? Stern does not claim she did. "True, she didn't notify MADA," he says. He attributes this decision to her state in those moments: "Listen, she is stressed. She is very stressed by the situation." Later, according to him, she turned to her sister.

---

Sorrow, but not admission of responsibility

Stern says that since the arrest, Agam has expressed sorrow over Binyahu's death. However, he is careful to separate that sorrow from "remorse" in a sense that assumes responsibility for the act. When asked if she expresses remorse, he initially answers in the affirmative, but immediately clarifies: "There is no issue of remorse here, but rather an expression of sorrow over his death. Not a death she wanted."

According to him, from the perspective of the investigators and the prosecution, there is a lack of taking responsibility on her part: to say "I was wrong, I did something wrong, I am responsible for this." But from the perspective of the defense, this is exactly where the argument lies. "This does not mean she is not sorry for the tragic outcome of this situation," he says, "which, in the end, she did not necessarily create."

The relationship between Agam and Shilat is also expected to be under a magnifying glass. According to Stern, the two have been friends for about two years, a connection formed through their relationships with Binyahu and Matanya. After their arrest, they even sat, and according to him, probably still sit, in the same cell. In the conversation with him, the possibility arises that Shilat provided information in the investigation that might complicate Agam. Stern is very careful on this point, "If she claims she saw and Agam didn't see the attack tools, how is she incriminating her and in what?" he asks. Also regarding reports about the two being recorded inside the detention cell, he refuses to make definitive statements. He says it is likely such a recording took place, but notes a detail from his perspective: "My client was not confronted with anything like that."

The legal version may be delivered in measured words, but Stern describes the arrest itself in a less legal way. "It is not comfortable for her and it is not pleasant for her and she is not processing it," he says. From his perspective, she mainly "believes in her truth." But even that does not prevent moments of breaking down. "There were moments when she was very broken," he says.

And yet, when Stern is asked if he believes Agam can come out of this case differently than the prosecution seeks to paint it, he has no hesitation. "I don't know how it will end," he says, "but in my view, it should not end as the prosecution chose to attribute to her. I think it even follows from the facts of the indictment in certain respects."

Ultimately, the version presented by Agam Tsarfi's lawyers does not deny that she was there, traveled with the group, remained outside the apartment, and was connected to part of what was happening via video call. The defense line focuses precisely on what they claim she did not do: she did not recruit the minors, did not see the equipping, did not plan the harm, and did not want Binyahu's death. And this gap — between someone who is inside the chain of events and someone who was a partner in the planning that led to the fatal result — is likely the place where the main battle regarding her will take place in court.