These claims were raised by the respondent in the statement of claim that he submitted to the District Court, and were denied by the state. The police officers who were summoned to testify on behalf of the defense were asked by the respondent's counsel about the alleged violence, and denied both the violence itself and the claim that they knew in real time about the respondent's complaints of violence (see, for example, pages 183, 218, 272 and 318 of the transcript). However, the District Court rejected this version and preferred the Respondent's version. I do not find room to interfere with this conclusion. In this, as stated, my opinion is the same as that of my friends.
- Another question arises in relation to masturbation. The District Court accepted the respondent's claim that the police forced him to masturbate in front of their eyes (paragraph 18 of the judgment). This is mainly because the respondent was not interrogated by the defense on the issue of masturbation.
At first glance alone, it is difficult to accept the approach that the respondent was forced to masturbate. The extraordinary humiliation involved in such an act, forcing a person to masturbate in front of the scrutinizing eyes of his interrogators, makes it difficult to accept. However, it is precisely for this reason that the conduct of the defense is puzzling, when it chose not to question the respondent at all about the claim of masturbation that he raised in its two variations – as will be clarified. Nor can it be said – as hinted – that the defense did not notice the claim, ostensibly because it was hidden between the folds of the long statement of claim. This is because the statement of defense submitted by the state concretely relates to the claim of masturbation and denies it sweepingly (see, for example, paragraph 57 of the statement of defense). Despite this, the respondent was not interrogated by the defense in everything related to the alleged masturbation. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, raised the issue explicitly during the cross-examination conducted by defense witness Yitzhak Stern (see pages 175-176 of the transcript). The testimony of Stern, who served as the head of the investigation team at the police station during the relevant period, left a very negative impression on the District Court. Thus, with regard to another part of his testimony, the court ruled that the witness "writhed", "evaded" and demonstrated "poor memory". This is in addition to the general impression left on the court by the testimonies of the policemen, which were characterized by "evasions, cleverness, and systematic avoidance of giving answers... The level of responses received bordered on an insult."