(-) that a pair of black wool gloves were seized in the respondent's house, as well as a pair of sunglasses and a hat on her forehead that meet the description of the minor.
(-) that the minor noted that the suspect was hairy and that during the preparation of the kit she emphasized that he had hairs in his ears.
(-) that the respondent refused to have his face and ears photographed.
(-) that the respondent was identified by the minor in the supermarket (with reference to the interrogation of the child by the children's investigator)
(-) that the respondent never revolted and claimed what was going on, but held his head in his hands and remained silent (reference to memoranda).
(-) Reference to what the respondent said to the informant regarding the fact that he wore sunglasses and that he would admit whether the results of the DNA test would be positive.
(-) Reference to the presentation of the false DNA report.
(-) Reference to the Respondent's sexual habits.
The investigative actions that remained to be carried out were also detailed, including: conducting a voice identification lineup, obtaining the response of theDNA and the interrogation of the respondent's mother (who, according to the informant's affidavit, was the one who told the respondent not to confess and that she would arrange for him to have a lawyer). The investigator also noted that the minor emphasized that the assailant had hairs in his ears and that "it is indeed possible to see such hairs in his ears despite his young age," and that the respondent refused to be photographed.
- During the hearing, the court (the Honorable Judge A. Talmor) turned to the respondent and asked whether he had been beaten by a police officer during the interrogation, to which he replied that there were three policemen in the room, one of whom kicked him from behind. Counsel for the respondent argued at that meeting that the police had not completed the alibi test (by not calling the Perach coordinator), and that the saliva and hair samples were taken from the respondent only on 19 July 1999, while the Honorable Justice Reich-Shapira instructed the police to do so on the morning of 18 July 1999.
In its decision, which was given on the website, the court ruled that there is prima facie evidence of the respondent's involvement in the offense attributed to him, and that the police do not sit idly by, but carry out many investigative activities on an ongoing and pertinent basis. It was further determined that the delay in taking the samples from the respondent did not constitute a violation of the court's decision to extend the first detention, since this stemmed from the development of the investigation and the coordination made with the forensic police. Ultimately, the police's request was granted and the respondent's detention was extended for an additional seven days.
- As stated, the police's claim that the respondent was identified by the minor in the supermarket is not accurate at all, and is more of a wishful thinking (wishful thinking) and drawing a conclusion from a faithful description of the facts. The trial court harshly criticized the police in this matter, and I have no choice but to join in. However, I will mention that the police referred to the report of the children's investigator and there, as stated, the minor said that she recognized the respondent with a grade of "nine and a quarter" out of ten.
- The trial court criticized the police's statement that black woolen gloves were seized, and that the hat and sunglasses matched the description of the minor, noting that the color of the gloves was not specified in the seizure report; Because the hat that was seized was not a casket hat Yellow; and that it is not at all clear whether round dark glasses were seized, "since the shape of the glasses seized in the plaintiff's home was not clarified, and in any case it is not known whether they were round dark glasses" (p. 10 of his judgment).
I am not convinced that this is an inaccuracy that goes to the root of the matter. As for the sunglasses, the policemen could have deduced this from the folder, and in any event, as we shall see below, on 25 July 1999 an identification of the glasses was conducted, and from the memo of the children's investigator it appears that the minor had painted right away on the respondent's sunglasses, stating that they are "the most similar". The minor did note that the glasses were not identical to the attacker's glasses, but it is clear that there was a great resemblance between them and the respondent's sunglasses, so in retrospect, it can be seen that the police's claim at the time regarding the similarity between the sunglasses was correct.