The report mentions two additional, "incriminating" statements made by the respondent to the informant: the respondent said that "I was there with sunglasses...", and also said that if the examination of the hearing was further civilian, he would plead guilty. However, in later hearings, the respondent proposed different explanations for the nature of the two statements, and claimed that they were completely taken out of context. For example, with regard to the sentence relating to the sunglasses, it is not clear whether the phrase "I was there" refers to the place where the rape took place at the time of its commission (which then has an incriminating connotation), or to the image that appears in the cluster. As for the trial relating to DNA, when the police investigators presented the respondent within a few days with evidence pretending to be another civil hearing belonging to him, he continued to deny any connection to the rape. It should be noted once again that the transcript of the respondent's conversations with the informants paints a different picture, since he often denies any acquaintance with the minor and denies any connection between him and the act of rape.
As I noted above, at this stage, a separation must be made between the respondent's continued detention and the experience of detention. At the initial stage of the investigation, which also includes the second extension, I am prepared to assume that the existing material was sufficient to order the continued detention of the respondent. However, from the perspective of the experience of the arrest, this period also raises difficulty for the appellant in terms of the tort claim. It can be said that in contrast to the first extension, the investigator who appeared in court did not publicly present false facts, but rather a secret report that was of course not presented to the respondent. Therefore, how can this affect him? The answer to this is that this period of detention does not stand alone, but is a direct continuation of the first period of detention. Again, the matter will be examined in terms of the respondent's experience. During the first extension of detention, he learned that the girl recognized him on the spot, which was not true, and that the police were willing to say that he was on the verge of confession – a detail that he knew was not true. As may be recalled, the statement on which the police was based was not made by the respondent. Against this background, bringing him before the judge while dealing with the confidential material that led to the extension only exacerbated the harsh experience of detention. I will discuss this matter later with reference to the expert opinions.
- The request for a third extension of detention was heard on July 26, 1999. The request was granted, and the detention was extended until July 30, 1999, for the purpose of filing an indictment. On the same day, the indictment was filed together with a request to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings. I expressed my opinion above that if it were not for the police's failures with regard to the diary, the call outputs and the location, it is reasonable to assume that the development of the investigation would have been different at this stage. As noted, the interrogation without the aforementioned omissions would have apparently led to a reduction in the period of detention by about 50 days. The question marks would have created a different dynamic, but in any event, additional time was required to bring about the respondent's release, and this also against the background of the identification of the minor at a certain stage in the interrogation. It can be said that my position shifts the point at which the respondent should have been released to an earlier date.
In this context, it should be emphasized that even on the basis of the evidence submitted, the District Court expressed its opinion in the decision to order the respondent's arrest, noting that this was "an almost impossible task [...], complex and very difficult to decipher", and that the various details of the investigation attracted "once here and once here":