I don't think so. Life experience shows that some defendants stand by their denial despite the presence of fingerprints or findings DNA Clear evidence of their presence in the arena. I will not go so far as to refer to a similar case that was recently discussed, where I recently ordered the detention of a defendant who was arrested three years after the rape on the basis of the findings of an examination DNA, Although he denied the accusation against him (Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 5524/11 Kayakov v. State of Israel (unpublished, August 2, 2011); See also the judgment that was given only a few days ago in a criminal appeal 8056/10 'Awad v. State of Israel (unpublished, November 19, 2012), in which the appellant's appeal against his conviction for rape was rejected, despite his claim that he did not know how theDNA to the complainant's navel and bra). In short, denying a suspect despite DNA or fingerprint findings should not lead investigators Minya and Bea to the conclusion that the suspect is innocent and should be released.
- In my opinion, the evidence that the respondent was required to extend the first detention, together with the additional evidence that accumulated – such as what the respondent said to the informant and his refusal to be photographed – clearly met the threshold of "reasonable suspicion" as required In section 13(a) to the Detentions Law for the purpose of continuing to extend the detention. I do not share the firm conclusion of the trial court that the erroneous manner in which the identification of the girl was described in the confidential report prepared by the police "undoubtedly constituted a major element in the court's decision to continue to arrest the plaintiff" (p. 8 of the judgment). As stated, the police themselves referred in the aforementioned report to the minor's statement as collected by the children's investigator, in which the identification process is described as it is, and in which the minor identifies the respondent with a certainty of nine and a quarter out of ten. In short, there is no causal connection between the inaccurate manner in which the police described the matter in the confidential report and the decision to extend the respondent's detention.
Between the Second Detention Extension and the Third Detention Extension
- On the day of the court's decision, the respondent's sister, mother and brother were interrogated by the police. It should be noted that the respondent's brother testified that the respondent does not wear sunglasses but very rarely. The sister of the Perach pupil was also interrogated, who said that the respondent sometimes helps her with her homework.
The next day, the head of the Perach team was also interrogated, who described the framework of work at Perach and even attached the summary report of the activity that the respondent himself filled out at the time, according to which on the day the offense was committed, a four-hour "double meeting" was held at the camper's home, between 15:30 and 19:30 (as may be recalled, the incident took place at 20:00). In addition, the Perach coordinator was interrogated, who stated that the camper was very satisfied with the respondent, and that she was aware that the camper's sister had asked the respondent to help her as well.