In addition, the minor described the assailant as a hairy man, whose skin color was similar to hers, who wore a plain yellow hat (the minor even tried to draw him), with a visor that covered his face. In response to the investigator's question about the chances that the minor thinks that the man from the supermarket (the respondent) is the attacker on a rating of 1 to 10, the minor replied "nine and a quarter," and when asked what nine and a quarter is, she reasoned based on "the hair, the hairs on his body, the height, the structure, the color of his clothes, maybe he wears it anyway because he likes that color, and that it's his home and his voice." The minor added that she thought she would be able to recognize his voice, which she described as "polite and courteous," if asked to do so. The children's investigator noted in the child's testimony form that she was under the impression that there was a reasonable belief in the testimony of the minor, who "did not try to exaggerate and enhance the identification and even expressed a fear of mistake."
- The next day, on 19 July 1999, a sample of the respondent's saliva and hair was sent for forensic examination, and according to memoranda written by Inspector Yitzhak Stern, a conversation was held with the District Attorney, Adv. Goldschmidt, to receive instructions for further investigation. Later in the day, another conversation was held, in which the State Attorney's Office was authorized to present the respondent with a false positive opinion regarding the findings of theDNA. A false opinion was indeed presented to the respondent during his interrogation, but the respondent adhered to his version that he had nothing to say and that he did not know what it was about. During the course of the investigation, the following exchanges took place [the errors in the original – Y.A.]:
Investigator: What is your reaction if the DNA answer is positive?
Respondent: I continue to make the same claim.
Interrogator: Why do you refuse to be photographed?