Considering that the respondent raised only two options for an alibi: Office Depot or Perach, and both options were examined by the police and the matter was even reconciled with the hours report filled out by the respondent, and in view of the fact that the respondent responded in writing to the indictment and raised an alibi claim based on the recording of Perach's hours (his presence at the camper's house until 19:30), I do not at all share the trial court's criticism of the failure to search for the diary and its seizure. The respondent was interrogated many times, and only in his interrogation on 18 July 1999, at the very beginning of the journey, in response to the question "Where were you on the evening of 18 April 1999", he replied, "I don't remember, you can see in my diary that I may have volunteered at Perach that day". The respondent was interrogated many times afterwards, and did not raise the issue of the diary. And the question is, if the diary was so important to the respondent and his mother – so much so that it almost became the cornerstone of the trial court's judgment – why did the respondent not raise the issue of the diary again and again before his interrogators? Why did the defense attorney not ask to present the diary in all the arrest proceedings, not even after the filing of the indictment when the issue of the output of the conversations had already been raised, and not even in an appeal to the Supreme Court, where he mentions that the respondent mentioned his diary during the interrogation, but does not complain that the diary was not presented to the respondent or was not caught? Why did his mother not bring the diary or photocopy of the diary to the defense attorney or the respondent? And why did the respondent's mother, in her interrogation of 20 July 1999, not raise the subject of the diary? Against the background of all the circumstances, it seems to me that it is very far-reaching to attribute negligence to the interrogators, due to a reference Casual of the diary by the respondent once in a single sentence during countless interrogations.
- On 22 July 1999, another search was conducted at the respondent's home, in order to see if he was in possession of a belt that matched the description of the minor. No such belt was found, and the search report stated that nothing was seized. At this point there is a contradiction between the version of the respondent's mother and the version of the policeman, and we will quote the words in the language of the trial court:
"I won't say too much about the diary. It is enough for me to turn to the interrogations of the police officers involved, who blamed each other for initiating additional and/or other directions of investigation, and the words of the plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Noga Wax, who left me with the impression of a trustworthy and decent woman. Mrs. Wax testified that she actually begged the police to take the diary, maybe they would be able to find something in it to help her son. The police, she said, did take the diary, but they mocked her for her pleas.