First Detention Extension
- In a hearing in the Magistrate's Court (the Honorable Judge D. Reich-Shapira) held on the same day, July 17, 1999, the representative of the police, Major Sgt. Desta, argued as follows [the errors in the original – Y.A.]:
"On Friday afternoon the complainant was inside a supermarket with her father, she casually identified the suspect, she started crying, screaming and crying... The complainant pointed to the suspect as someone who did to her...
[...]
In addition to identification, the suspect is linked to the offense:
- A search of his home found sock hats that fit the complaint, sunglasses, and sunglasses in the apartment. The incident happened at night and the suspect admits that he walks around the street wearing sunglasses at night.
- Images that we claim are pornographic and feature young girls.
- Blue videos, condoms, and that sort of thing.
- The suspect in the interrogation is debating whether to confess or not."
In response to the defense attorney's questions, the police representative replied, inter alia, that the respondent's hours of activity with the Perach camper did not correspond to the time the offense was committed; Because the cluster is very similar to the respondent; and that the respondent refused to give blood samples.
At the end of the hearing, the parties agreed to extend the respondent's detention by three days, until July 20, 1999, and to take blood samples from the respondent the next morning, while the court emphasized that if negative results were obtained, the police would consider continuing the respondent's detention.
- It seems that there is no dispute that the respondent's initial arrest was bound by reality, and even the trial court clarified this in its judgment (paragraph 29.4 of its judgment). Although the decision to extend the respondent's detention by three days was made with the consent of the defense attorney, it should be remembered that at the stage of the detention, the investigative materials are not available to the defense, and therefore we must examine whether the arrest stemmed from police negligence.
- As the evidence shows, some of Sgt. Desta's claims are inaccurate, to say the least. First, according to the father, the minor Anonymous She recognized the respondent but reacted with tears and hysteria when asked to do so. Nor was it a random identification, but her father brought her to the supermarket especially so that she could look at the respondent. Second, sock hats were not seized in the respondent's house, but rather forehead hats. Third, no pornographic images of young girls were seized at the respondent's home (at least, there is no memorandum detailing the extent of the pornographic material seized). Fourth, in a memorandum written by the informant, he attributes to the respondent things that were said by the informant himself ("And I thought I'd admit it because it's just Pozzi Muzzi but my mom didn't want me to admit it").
As for Policeman Desta's statement that the respondent is "debating whether to confess or not to confess" – it is possible that the words were said on the basis of the memorandum written by Sergeant Desta himself as mentioned above, in light of the respondent's statement"Who would believe me that this is the first time?". In his testimony in the trial court, Desta explained that his conclusion stemmed from an assessment of the situation by the police and from the impression of the informant (paragraph 16 of the judgment; transcript, at p. 303).
- But even if we "neutralize" the inaccuracies in Officer Desta's words, the respondent was obligated at this stage to have the following facts:
(-) The minor's reaction when she was asked by her father to identify the respondent, which was very unusual according to her father.