In previous sections, I discussed some of the elements that made up the detention experience: the interrogators' negligence in exhausting important investigative directions – especially the diary, the call outputs and the location, as well as the violence and threats against the respondent. I will now move on to clarifying another significant offensive element, which concerns the presentation of "tainted evidence" before the courts. This evidence painted the respondent in bright incriminating colors, stubbornly labeled him as a "rapist", and contributed to the respondent's difficult subjective feeling that all his answers to the interrogators fell on deaf ears. I will emphasize that it is possible that those tainted evidence did not necessarily lead to the arrest of the respondent, i.e., that there is no proven factual causal connection between its presentation and the respondent's arrest. It is also possible that in any event, in the early stages of the investigation, there was sufficient evidence to justify the request for the respondent's arrest. However, this is not the question that is being tested. The question is whether it is possible to identify a recurring pattern of presenting contaminated evidence, and if so, the question arises as to whether there is a causal connection between this pattern and the emotional damage caused to the respondent. My answer to both questions is yes. I will first turn to the clarification of the first part, and then I will discuss the question of causal connection as I have presented it.
- Let us return to the respondent's first extension of detention, which was carried out on July 17, 1999. During the hearing, the police representative, Sgt. Desta, said that the minor recognized the respondent randomly when she was with her father in the supermarket, began to cry and scream, and pointed to the respondent as the person who committed the act of rape on her. Desta also reported that a search of the respondent's home found sock hats that fit the minor's complaint, sunglasses and pornographic pictures of young girls. Desta added that the respondent is debating whether to confess to the act of rape attributed to him. All of these details were incorrect and patently inaccurate. I will elaborate: