Voiced: Let me be shown a young man who doesn't have these things at home today.
Respondent: Do you understand? That's why I was upset at first that they put all this under investigation, that's what they want to build their case on?
[...]
Answer: Yes, I know. I have no problem talking. I don't open up so quickly, but if interesting things I don't have a problem at all.
Voiced by: No. I told you, I... I felt close to you, and I talk to you about every subject.
Answer: No. They say I have it, that I know how to listen, and that I understand it quickly. It works for me mainly with children. I love children very much.
Voiced by: I love children too.
In the memorandum written by Policeman Yaron Wasker, it was stated that while listening to the respondent's detention cell, he heard him tell his cellmate "that he loves children very much And that he is attracted to children" (emphasis added – Y.A.). This is an addition of the imagination of the policeman, who, in his cross-examination, justified the matter by saying that "there was something in the connotation of a child lover" as a statement of a sexual nature. This ensued, and in her argument to the court in the application for detention until the end of the proceedings, counsel for the State argued that the respondent had told the informant "that he loves children very much and is attracted to them, and that it is difficult for him to open up to adults, but only to small children" (p. 32 of the transcript of August 15, 1999). We have no choice but to join the harsh and justified criticism voiced by the trial court in this context about the policeman Wesker, whose appearance in court was apparently quite miserable. Thus, the trial court notes on this issue:
"During his interrogation in court, Wesker was asked where he heard the words 'attracted to children' when he listened to the dubbing. In paragraph 15 of his affidavit, Wesker tried to 'correct' what was stated in the affidavit – the same memorandum that was also presented to the arresting judges! - When he says that what is stated in the Talmud stems from an impression. Since what is stated in the memorandum colored the plaintiff's love for children of a sexual color, he was asked and reviewed why he was so impressed, but after a long series of tricks and evasions, he admitted that he did not hear the plaintiff say that he was attracted to children, and there was no answer in his mouth, why did he write this in the memorandum except for the fact that he was so impressed by what he heard?? (pp. 362-365 of the transcript). And once again, there is no escaping the unfortunate conclusion that in the context of the tireless attempts of the police to bring about the arrest and conviction of the prosecutor, they did not hesitate to invent evidence out of thin air, in the sense that the end justifies the means. Indeed, in the State Attorney's Office's response to the request under section 80, the State Attorney's representative, Adv. Mashali, admitted that an incriminating false sentence was added, i.e., false facts were presented to the court" (ibid., paragraph 21 of the judgment).
- On Saturday, 24 July 1999, the respondent was interrogated again, without the interrogation revealing anything, and was put in another dubbed cell. In his conversation with the informant, the respondent referred to the interrogation, noting that the interrogators tried to coax him to confess, since he was "completely buried and closed", that "everything is closed", and that it would be in his best interest. According to the respondent, he tried to be more assertive in his answers, telling the interrogator "to start thinking about an option that maybe it's not me." The respondent also claimed that a "crusade was being waged against me... Let him succeed." The respondent commented that "there is no doubt that at the moment everything is against me. But... TheDNA. And maybe there will be more things. Overall I believe I'm clean. So good." To the informant's statement that he seemed to be desperate, the respondent replied, "Not at all. Just thoughts. Desperate? On the contrary. He can talk as much as he wants. He has nothing new against me. And I believe I didn't. Okay. We will live and see." The respondent even said that he understood the anger of the police, that he would also have been angry, because it was a shocking case that everyone would like to find the person who committed it, and that he would prove him right.
Later, the informant asked the respondent why he was not building an alibi for himself. To this, the respondent responded: "I do build. But he is not strong. What will I do? I can't invent something that doesn't exist. I try to remember everything I could have done. I haven't found, at the moment, anything strong. What am I going to do?"