"Woe to me, my creator, if the respondent is arrested without it being indeed the man who committed the criminal act attributed to him in the indictment that is the subject of this motion; And woe to me, if he is not arrested, if in fact he is responsible for the scoundrel."
In summary, the respondent had three layers of evidence: The first layer - Those very puzzling "mouthwashes" that I mentioned above, and which on the face of them are not suitable to be said by a person who was not present at the scene of the crime at all. The second layer - The identification of the respondent by the girl twice (once at the supermarket and once again at the police station before the identification of the glasses), even though the judge emphasized that this was not a definite identification according to the law. The Third Layer - The respondent's actions and words during the interrogation, as well as the suspicious items seized in his home (sunglasses, hats and gloves). These layers were joined by the respondent's alibi refutation, which I mentioned above; the respondent's refusal to cooperate with the police, to be photographed and to participate in a voice recognition parade; the respondent's place of residence (the same building in whose yard the rape took place); and the great similarity between the cluster and the respondent. Ultimately, the court decided, after difficult deliberations, as aforesaid, to order on the respondent's detention until the end of the proceedings.
As the judge emphasized several times, the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings was made with a heavy heart and after much hesitation and deliberation. The totality of the evidence presented to the court did not yield an unequivocal, quick and conclusive conclusion. The scales were almost hostile. Ultimately, the court decided that the handcuffs were slightly inclined to the respondent's obligation, and therefore ordered his detention until the end of the proceedings. My opinion is that precisely in this situation, when the scales were almost hostile, and there was only a step between the respondent and his release from detention, every omission and every flaw in the conduct of the police should be viewed with extreme severity. Unfortunately, my opinion is that such omissions and defects have indeed been discovered. The omissions were detailed by my colleague, and there is no need to repeat them.