The sequence of events described raises a series of question marks. Why was the location of the cellular device in the respondent's possession not carried out, in order to exhaust this direction of investigation and shed light on the respondent's actions on the day of the rape? Even if I were willing to assume that in those days it was not customary to carry out regular location, as the police investigators testified before the District Court, this is still not enough. Why did it not verify the respondent with the contradiction between the hours he gave regarding his meetings with the camper, and the content of the flash call output? Why did the police not check the output of the cellular calls already on or about July 20, 1999, after it spoke with the trainee's mother and after it became known that the telephone call had been made from the respondent's home? On the said date, the respondent had already provided the relevant telephone number, which belonged to his mother, as the cell phone he was using (see the suspect's statement of July 16, 1999). The cellular output showed, as stated, an unusual call made by the respondent to the owner of the pension (an exception in the sense that only the respondent's father used to be in contact with the owner of the pension regarding the issue of rent). The discovery of the output at a later stage, thanks to the efforts of the defense attorney and the respondent's family, paved the way for the respondent's release from detention. The impression is that if the police had acted properly, and had acted earlier in clarifying these questions and seizing the necessary material, the respondent's detention would have been significantly shortened. To be precise: this failure does not stand alone. Although it appears that during the aforementioned period, the police did not conduct locations, except for murder or security offenses, the police officer who testified agreed that it was possible to locate a minor in the case of rape. In any event, this omission joins a more concrete omission in the matter of the diary, as will be clarified below.
- A greater and more significant perplexity arises, therefore, in relation to the diary. Already during his interrogation by the police on July 18, 1999, the day after the first extension of detention, the respondent mentioned that he kept a meeting diary. The same diary, he claimed, would help him reconstruct where he was at the time of the rape. As stated, it is easy to understand why the respondent had difficulty recalling what his exact schedule was three months earlier. This problem could have been solved if the police investigators had taken the trouble to seize the diary and present it to the respondent, as he requested. However, the researchers did not do so.
This omission is intensified in light of the testimony of the respondent's mother, which was heard and accepted as reliable in the trial court. The mother said that when the police came to her home on July 22, 1999 to conduct a supplementary search, she begged them to take the diary in question. The mother said that the police finally agreed to take the diary with them, while mocking her for her pleas. Policeman Wasker, who also testified before the trial court, contradicted the mother's statements, and denied that she had asked him to take the diary or that he had actually taken it. I will note that I see no reason to intervene in determining the reliability of the trial court, which heard the two contradictory testimonies and clearly preferred the mother's version over the policemen's versions. Moreover, according to our approach, it is possible to suffice with a more limited factual finding and adopt the determination that the mother begged them to take the diary in question, regardless of whether the police actually took the diary or not. The main thing is that despite raising the matter, the diary was not presented to the respondent at that stage. Of course, a good police investigation must take into account the possibility that the suspect did not commit the offense, even if at that stage the investigators believe otherwise. According to this view, as a result of the respondent's request and the mother's plea, the need arose to present the diary to the respondent, in order to deal with the claim that the respondent did not commit the rape, but that he did not remember exactly what he had done three months earlier.