It should be emphasized that the examination of the matter in this context is for the purpose of examining the experience of the detention. In other words, the minor's reaction can be explained by the fact that she was moved by the very possibility that she was meeting the man who raped her, face to face. Nevertheless, at the initial stage, for the purpose of arresting the respondent for the purposes of interrogation, this matter is weighty. My opinion is that all the circumstances – including The respondent's resemblance to the suspect's cluster (the respondent's attorney denied during the hearing that such a resemblance existed), and the respondent's residence in the same building in whose yard the offense was committed – They justified the initial detention for the purposes of interrogation. However, as noted, in the tort channel, the question is also: What about the experience of detention? The respondent, with all his mental structure, is exposed to the interrogator's claim during the detention hearing (Exhibit 69) that the minor recognized him immediately and that he was considering confessing to the offense. As for the first part, he understands the significance and does not know that there was no such identification. As for the second part, he learned that the police, who are "holding" him in custody, are liable to present false facts.
- The second remand extension was carried out on July 20, 1999. The reasons for the decision were not detailed in the minutes, but it was noted that "a review of the police investigation file and everything contained therein, including the confidential reports and secret memoranda submitted to the court, shows that there is prima facie evidence at this stage of the respondent's involvement in the offense attributed to him." What are the details included in that confidential report (Exhibit 107), which summarized the findings of the investigation so far?
The report opens with the fact that the minor identified the respondent in the supermarket. This detail was also mentioned in the police's request to issue an arrest warrant against the respondent, dated July 20, 1999. The report further mentions that a pair of black wool gloves, sunglasses and a visor hat were seized at the respondent's home, which met the description given by the minor. As I emphasized above, all of these details create a rather damning impression, but at the same time Wrong and inaccurate for the most part: This is with regard to the immediate identification of the respondent in the supermarket (the minor, as stated, She didn't recognize the respondent in the supermarket), and as to the similarity between the hats and glasses that were seized and the hats and glasses described by the minor (a similarity that does not exist, or at least it is impossible to know if it exists).