After describing the circumstances of the commission of the offense and the identification of the respondent, and noting that counsel for the parties analyzed the alleged evidence in great detail, the court commented (emphasis added – Y.A.) –
"I therefore went back and examined, as hastily and mercifully, as far as I could, the thick file that was submitted to me by the plaintiff, while trying to understand what emerged from it. I examined the girl's words, her father's words, the defendant's own words, as well as the transcripts of his conversations with the informants who were placed in his cell and tried their best to extract things from his mouth. In my opinion, the affair remains complex and very difficult to decipher even after this study. Only the repeated attempt to assemble the resulting picture, to dismantle it afterwards, and to try to reassemble it from every possible angle, ultimately helped me reach a decision."
- In its decision, the court noted that the prosecution relies on three main layers of prima facie evidence: the first layer – the minor's statements to the youth investigator and the identification of the respondent by the minor twice, even if not certain identification. The second layer – secret recordings made to the respondent while he was talking to the informants in his cell, during which he denied what was attributed to him, but failed (according to the prosecution) in a number of verbal outbursts. The third layer – the respondent's police interrogation, his statements, his behavior, the suspicious items seized in his home and the police reports.
From here, the court turned to the prima facie evidence:
(-) The Respondent's Mouth Leaks – The Court detailed the Respondent's "Mouth Leaks", while wondering whether these were indeed moments of failure on his part: The first - Referring to the cluster, the respondent claimed that it was really similar, "even though I was wearing sunglasses". The court noted that this statement leaves a hard mark on the listener, since an innocent person can be expected to say that it is not him; The second - In response to the informant's question, what will he do if theDNA Channeling him to the incident, the respondent replied, "It's a waste of time, I'll admit, it's better to admit than to get into trouble"; The third - In which he replied to the informant who asked if the Russian minor: "No, I don't think". The informant asked if she was Israeli, to which the respondent replied, "I think so, I don't know her." In the same conversation, the informant asked if the minor looked under her age, and the respondent replied, "I don't know. I only see faces."