When the minor arrived at the police station for the purpose of identifying the glasses, she encountered the respondent and immediately burst into tears and reacted hysterically.
(-) At the first glasses identification lineup, the minor immediately pointed to the respondent's sunglasses and said that they were most similar to the pair worn by the assailant, even though they were not identical.
(-) The respondent's counsel refused to photograph the respondent's face and refused to arrange for the voter identification.
On the other hand, it is possible to point to the respondent's firm stance and adherence to his version and his expression of self-confidence in his righteousness, both to the informants and after he was presented with an exchange that took place between him and one of the informants.
- Despite any dissatisfaction with the policeman's record and a survey or the inaccuracies and defects in some of the evidence presented to the court in the previous arrest proceedings, these did not lead the court to order the extension of the respondent's detention. In his decision, the judge noted that "the case was discussed with a lot of material, while I was reviewing the file I did not read the full evidence material, I carefully read the complainant's complaint, the hearings that preceded this hearing before other judges, including an appeal to the Honorable Judge Kaplan, and various memoranda submitted to the judges during the hearings." At this stage, the respondent had already accumulated almost all of the evidence that was before the court at the detention stage until the end of the proceedings after the indictment was filed. This is a fairly substantial piece of evidence, and without taking lightly the false and inaccurate statements of the police investigators, their weight is almost invalid in light of the body of evidence. In short, there is no causal connection between them and the court's decision to extend the respondent's detention for the third time.
Filing of the indictment and the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings
- On July 30, 1999 – two weeks after the respondent was first arrested on July 16, 1999 – an indictment was filed with the District Court attributing to him the offense of sodomy, and at the same time a request for his detention until the end of the proceedings. The respondent's counsel requested a postponement for the purpose of photographing the file and studying the material, while preserving the right to argue on the level of the prima facie evidence after reviewing the evidence material.
On August 10, 1999, a hearing was held in the District Court (the Honorable Judge B. Ophir-Tom), during which the defense attorney argued that a person who was suitable for the class had been arrested in Haifa, and that there was room to conduct an identification lineup. The state's counsel argued that she should consult on the matter. The court ruled that the prosecution and the police must seriously consider the defense attorney's statements, which the court defined as "reasonable and require action accordingly," and postponed the hearing to August 15, 1999, while expressing the hope that the parties would relate to the defense attorney's argument in a substantive manner.