The court criticized the fact that the police did not issue an order to seize the diary, and for its disregard of evidence that might have been credited to the respondent, which indicates that the investigators are fixed in their minds that the respondent is the attacker, while ignoring the possibility that they made a mistake.
- Call Outputs - It was held that the police's refusal to ask for the outputs of the mobile phone that the respondent allegedly used, and its disregard of the output of the calls of the flash device in his home, amounted to an investigative failure, and that "there is certainly reason to believe that the police officers refrained from conducting necessary investigations, due to their unqualified trust and full confidence that the plaintiff is the wanted rapist." The court also criticized the State Attorney's Office officials who were "tempted to rely on parts of truth and parts of testimonies in order to substantiate the filing of an indictment" (paragraph 15 of the judgment).
- The conduct of the police - The court noted the improper conduct of the investigators, which was expressed, inter alia, in the following points:
(-) The alleged misleading of the court The respondent is debating whether to confess;
(-) An incorrect entry in the record according to which the respondent told the informant that it was difficult for him to open with adults, but that he opened with small children and was attracted to them, while the transcript of the dubbing shows that the words were not uttered at all, and was attracted to small children;
(-) The interrogators' claim that pornographic material was found in the respondent's room, a seizure that has never been proven;
(-) Evidentiary damage expressed in deficiencies in the evidence that were supposed to be in the police file and the State Attorney's Office's file;
(-) Exerting improper pressure on the respondent by presenting a false laboratory report, the respondent's DNA was found on the minor, and failure to change the direction of the investigation despite the fact that the respondent adhered to his denials despite the fabricated report;