As for the hat that was seized, it was indeed not a hat Yellow casket As the minor's version, but in a hat Forehead Green The trial court discussed this with great emphasis in its judgment. However, the conclusion that the investigators sought in real time to mislead the court on this point is far-reaching in my opinion. I do not think that a distinction should be made between Casket and Mitzhia In human language, and at night, when the assailant is attacking the minor in the dark or in dim light, I am not convinced that it is easy to distinguish between yellow and green. With regard to the gloves seized in the respondent's home, the search report did not mention the color of the gloves, and this should be restricted, but it is not clear why the trial court concluded that the color of the seized gloves was not black, as described by the minor.
In summary, I do not share the trial court's firm conclusion "that none of the exhibits seized correspond to the items of clothing described by a minor."
- At that point in time, the respondent had accumulated additional investigative material. Thus, in his words to the informant, he noted that "he was there with sunglasses"; Because if the test of theDNA He will admit what is attributed to him; that the minor rated the probability that the respondent was the rapist with a score of "nine and a quarter" out of ten; that a certain detail of the respondent's sexual behavior caused the interrogators to link it to the sexual acts committed against the minor; and that the respondent refused to have his face and ears photographed. In addition, an examination of the respondent's alibi claim was examined and revealed that he did not work at the office-depot on the eve of the incident, and that he used to stay at the house of the Perach camper on Sundays until about 20:00.
On the other hand, the presentation of the reportDNA The false statement did not help the police, and despite his presentation, the respondent stuck to his version that he was innocent. In the appeal before us, counsel for the respondent argued that if this fact had been presented to the trial court, it would have been inconceivable that the court would have ordered the respondent's arrest. This is also the opinion of the trial court when it said "Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that if the suspect does not confess, despite the alleged existence of that report DNA falsely, then there is room to change the direction of the investigation, and to seriously consider the release of the suspect, and to continue the investigation in other directions in order to try to locate the real criminal" (ibid., paragraph 17 of the judgment).