On January 26, 2000, a hearing was held in the District Court, in which the parties announced their agreement that the respondent would retract his denial of the facts in the indictment and that the prosecution would cancel the indictment, in accordance with the instructions Section 94(b) To the Kindness. The court (the Honorable Justices v. Amit, A. Kaplan-Hagler, A. Tal) accepted the request, and the indictment was dismissed.
- We have extensively explained the sequence of events and the body of prima facie evidence that accumulated in the respondent's case. We have engraved the reader with lengthy details of the matter, in order to present the picture of the prima facie evidence that was before the courts when they decided to extend the respondent's detention (detention for days) and to detain him until the end of the proceedings. We discussed the evidence that the respondent was obligated to do, the findings that could have strengthened his version, and the "inaccuracies" and defects in the reports and memoranda submitted by the police to the courts. We set these against each other, and reached the conclusion that it is not possible to point to a causal connection between those "inaccuracies" and defects and the decisions of the Magistrate's Court to extend the respondent's detention for about two weeks, and the decision of the District Court to detain him until the end of the proceedings.
However, in terms of the "is" I did not testify. At this point we come to the second part of the cluster of allegations relating to the negligent conduct of the investigation, which is the issue of "investigation failures". This is in light of the respondent's argument, which was accepted in the judgment of the trial court, that had it not been for the failures of the investigation, he could have been released within a short time.
The Alleged Investigation Failures
- In its ruling, the trial court attributed importance to two main investigative failures: one – the police's failure to examine the respondent's diary; The second is an examination of the outputs of Bezeq telephone calls in the respondent's apartment and the cell phone that he claimed was in his possession. These two "investigative failures" are not mutually exclusive, and they revolve around the respondent's alibi claim and his complaint that the interrogators were mentally fixed and negligent in refraining from examining the alibi claim properly.
The Diary
- The subject of the diary occupies a central place in the judgment, and the trial court attached great weight to the claim that the police refrained from presenting the respondent's diary to it, as it put it (emphasis mine – Y.A.):
"The plaintiff's counsel complained harshly about the police's disregard for the mention of the plaintiff's diary, and there is no doubt that he was right. I will admit that I did not reach the end of the opinion of the investigators involved, in refraining from seizing the plaintiff's diary and examining it. Such a study would have shown that the plaintiff used to write down in the diary tasks that he had to perform. It is almost certain that if the diary had been seized and presented to the plaintiff, then he would have remembered that on April 13, 1999, he had written down a reminder for himself to deal with his father's cell phone debt and rent, and that a debt that was transferred to a hearing place was settled on the day of the rape, at the very time of the rape, which would have significantly shortened the plaintiff's detention, and would have led to the cancellation of the suspicions against him even before they had been revealed. tendons and an indictment" (p. 12 of the judgment).