Identification of the Respondent by the Minor - The court ruled that the investigation material indicates that the minor never identified the respondent as the person who harmed her, in contrast to the manner in which the Israel Police presented the matter to the courts. It was held that "the girl's words do not indicate under any circumstances that she burst into tears because she identified that person as the one who had done the terrible act to her, but rather that her crying stemmed from the situation in which she was asked to try to identify that person as the person who had committed horrible acts against her" (paragraph 11 of the judgment).
- Description of the suspect and details of his clothing - The minor stated in her interrogation by the children's investigator that the assailant was wearing a yellow casket hat and was wearing sunglasses, and the minor's father stated in his statement that his daughter had told him that the assailant was wearing round sunglasses and that he had gloves.
It was determined that although none of the exhibits seized in the respondent's home matched the details of the clothing described by the minor, the police claimed in the hearing for the extension of the respondent's first detention and in a confidential report submitted to the court at the hearing for the extension of the respondent's second detention, that a pair of black wool gloves, sunglasses and a visor hat were found that met the description. The trial court viewed this as "disruption of proceedings and misleading the court" (paragraph 12 of the judgment).
With regard to the existence or absence of hairs in the assailant's ears, the court noted that Obviously, the minor could not see whether there was hair in the respondent's ears, and it was not proven that his ears were indeed hairy. During her interrogation, the minor did not describe hair in his ears, and this came up only at the stage of drawing the suspect's skeleton, on which "black hair in the ears" was written, without the illustrator being interrogated on the subject. The court noted that the failure to record a memorandum regarding the minor's statements in this context constitutes an investigative failure, and that in the first days of the detention the respondent refused to be photographed, so that the question of whether or not he had hairs in his ears was merely a rumor.
- The alibi claim The respondent did not raise an alibi claim during his interrogation on the day of his arrest. However, in his interrogation on 18 July 1999, he replied that he did not remember where he was on the evening of the day of the attack, but noted that it could be checked in his diary, and that he may have volunteered at Perach that day.