The findings of the investigation move to the respondent's detention
- The minor was rushed by her father to the police station immediately after she returned home crying and told her parents what had happened. At around 11:00 P.M., she was interrogated by a pediatric investigator, at 3:00 A.M. (the morning of April 19, 1999) she was examined at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, and already that day a photographic reenactment of the incident was conducted at the scene in the presence of the minor, a child investigator and police officers. From the photographic reenactment, it can be seen that this is an intelligent, eloquent and self-confident minor, who, despite the severe trauma she had experienced only less than 24 hours earlier, returned to the scene of the crime and knew how to provide details about the incident. The words that the minor said in the reenactment are consistent with what she said to the police on the night of the incident: the assailant was a young, thin, medium-low height; Wearing a yellow hat (in her statement to the police, the minor described the hat as a "casket" hat, but the description in the reconstruction and the illustration of the folder indicate that it was a regular visor hat); Wear black, round, thin, frameless sunglasses; He had a brown belt with a silver buckle; And he was wearing black wool gloves.
From the scene of the incident, one can get the impression that this is the backyard of a building, the entrance to which is hidden from view, among the bushes, and requires a "jump" from a height of about a meter. In addition, the minor noted that the assailant had given her a drink from a water pipe at the scene, and the reconstruction video shows that it was a pipe that was not visible to all, and that only a person familiar with the scene could know about. In the reenactment, the minor said that the assailant asked her what school she attended and where she lived, and she asked if she had to say it, and he replied no. When the assailant took her out of the yard into the street with her eyes closed, "I thought maybe he knew where I lived, he told me that he knew every corner here, and then I opened my eyes and went home" (p. 8 of the transcript of the reconstruction). Hence the conclusion that the assailant was well acquainted with the scene, a conclusion that was strengthened by the fact, which can be learned from the reconstruction, that the assailant led the minor to the grass Center The yard without fear that at least the neighbor on the ground floor will notice it. This strengthened the investigators' suspicions, and in arguing before the court in a request for detention until the end of the proceedings, counsel for the prosecution noted that the acts were committed near the balcony window of a neighbor who lived on the ground floor, which required either daring or knowing up close that he was an old man who had closed the blinds and watched television in the evening (p. 26 of the transcript of 15 August 1999).