It is evident, therefore, that the respondent's diary, including the days close to the day on which the minor was attacked, is full of various records. Against this background, the argument that it was precisely the record that appeared five days before the day of the incident that would have refreshed the respondent's memory that he was in a certain place precisely on the day of the rape and at the time of the rape, is not convincing in my opinion.
- At this point, we will return to the version of the respondent's mother, according to which she attributed great importance to the diary, and even took the trouble to photograph it immediately after the respondent's arrest. And now, only on August 31, 1999, About six weeks After his arrest, and upon the filing of the appeal to the Supreme Court, the respondent raised for the first time the claim that he had been at the Perach camper's home until about 21:30. One of two – either the diary was not important to the respondent, his mother or his defense attorney and therefore was not presented to him, or in view of the great importance that the respondent and his mother attached to the diary, it can be assumed that its contents or copies were brought to the respondent by his mother or defense attorney as early as possible, but despite this, this did not arouse his memory in such an accurate and detailed manner. In this context, I will mention that in front of the casual inscription in the diary ("a long meeting"), stands the report that the respondent himself Anyway, according to him, he stayed at the house of the Perach camper until 7:30 p.m. As for myself, I find it difficult to be convinced that the laconic writing in his diary would have overshadowed what was stated in the detailed and explicit hour report that he filled out himself, and would have removed the cloud of suspicion that hovered over him at that time.
- More than necessary, I say that even if the respondent's new alibi version had been raised at the outset, it is doubtful that it would have led to his immediate release.
As stated, the respondent's first version was that he stayed at the camper's home until 7:30 p.m., in accordance with a report that he himself filled out. The new alibi version, which arose for the first time after his appeal to the Supreme Court, was that he stayed at the camper's house until 21:15-21:30 – so that he could not be present at the scene of the offense when it occurred at 8:00 p.m. – and from there he went to pay the owner of the pension the rent for his father.