(-) A memorandum in which it was written that a girl, for whom the respondent served as a babysitter, said that the respondent "showed her the bulbul", while in fact the mother of that girl said that her daughter told her that she had seen the respondent's penis in a photograph from the family photo album in which the respondent was seen as a baby;
(-) Forcing the respondent to masturbate in front of the interrogators in order to see whether he is spilling sperm or not (I will note that this factual determination of the court was based on the fact that the respondent was not cross-examined on this claim).
The court criticized the investigators' pretense of understanding the human psyche and interpreting the respondent's behavior as incriminating, only because he did not revolt against the charges leveled at him and held his head down with both hands.
- Conclusion, that the court concluded that there was no tapestry of evidence from which it appears that the respondent was involved in the matter attributed to him; that the respondent was "marked as a target" from the moment of his arrest and that the police acted to justify their feeling of his guilt; and that even the State Attorney's Office did not do its job faithfully, since it relied on the police's statements without examining them in depth.
It was held that it is likely that if the police had presented the diary to the respondent close to his arrest, he would have recalled his actions that day; and that it is likely that the cross-checking of the data of the cell phone call outputs and a flash line in the respondent's home alongside a location request would have made it clear that the respondent was not at the scene of the offense at the time it was committed.
Against the background of the aforesaid, it was held that the respondent's prolonged detention stemmed from the "false veil of evidence" as a result of the erroneous information presented to the courts in a manner from which it could be concluded that there was evidence of the respondent's conviction, and that the conduct of the police, including the humiliation of the respondent who was forced to masturbate in front of his interrogators, was deliberately done out of a desire to extract a confession from him. The state's claim of contributory fault on the part of the respondent due to his lack of cooperation with the investigators was also rejected.
- After these words, the court turned to discuss the level of damage. It was held that since the State refrained from questioning the respondent on the question of the damage, the damage claimed by him should be regarded as undisputed.
In view of the discrepancies between the opinions of the experts on behalf of the parties, the court adopted the conclusions of the expert in the field of mental health who was appointed by the court. The expert determined that even before the case, the respondent suffered from an anxious-dependent personality disorder, which did not amount to a real disability, but following his arrest with all that entails, the respondent's permanent disability stands at 10%.