A reenactment of the incident shows that the assailant spoke with the minor quite a bit. In response to the interrogator's question whether she thought she would be able to recognize his voice, the minor answered in the affirmative. It can also be learned from the minor's statements that in addition to the cruel acts committed by the assailant, he did not shout or hit her, but rather tried to treat her politely and courteously (expressions used by the minor in another message that was taken from her), let her drink and escort her from the yard to the street.
- Another detail regarding the characteristics of the attacker arises from the folder prepared the day after the restoration, on April 20, 1999, in which the inscription "Black hair in the ears" appears. In a statement received from the painter on October 3, 1999, Hela stated that he saw fit to mention the hair in his ears, because he was under the impression that the minor had a clear memory and impression of abnormal hair in his ear. This issue was addressed in the judgment of the trial court, and I will quote the following words:
"... As I mentioned, the minor described the criminal several times, and did not mention that she saw hair in his ears. The first time there was talk of hair in the ears was when the suspect's cloak was illustrated. To be precise: the illustrator was not interrogated, and it is not at all clear whether the minor told him that she saw hairs in the suspect's ears. On the other hand, there is no memorandum indicating that any of the police officers at the station saw hair in the plaintiff's ears.
[ ] ... Therefore, the question arose, why was it stated in the arrest requests, among other details that were noted, that the girl stated that she had seen hair in the rapist's ears, and that the plaintiff indeed had a lesson in his ears? We did not receive an answer to this, and the evasive answers of the police in court testified to wretchedness, and a tireless attempt to continue to reinforce their false and baseless statements.