See, for example, "anchors" in the complainant's testimony regarding the date on which the "documents incident" took place – p. 56 of the transcript; "anchors" in the complainant's testimony regarding the date of the occurrence of the "laundry drying facility incident" – p. 56 of the transcript; "anchors" in the complainant's testimony regarding the date of the occurrence of the "bicycle incident" – p. 53 of the transcript.
Naturally, the complainant did not keep a record of every incident and incident, and she is not a "device for automatic accuracy". It is easy to understand that with respect to some of the events described in the indictment, the complainant is unable to remember precisely when they occurred.
- During the hearing of the complainant's testimony, more and more details came up. Incidents that were not mentioned during her police interrogations. Details about those events, which she did not mention in the past.
In my opinion, all of this does not indicate the complainant's unreliability, but rather her obligation to be precise. Some of the details that the complainant added in her testimony before me are of minor value. Some of them do not constitute a criminal offense. However, they can add "color" to the way the defendant and the complainant conduct their lives in their home. The complainant reiterated that she did not tell about all the incidents during her police interrogations (see for example, pp. 44 and 56 of the transcript), and that in some of the incidents or details she recalled later stages. In any event, this is a typical move for many witnesses who have experienced multiple and ongoing traumatic events. It is also not possible to expect the complainant to remember every Shabbat and holiday meal during her years of marriage with the defendant, every threat, every argument or every case of violence.
- Indeed, the complainant's version was not supported in the form of any medical documentation. Nor were any witnesses brought who were present at the events or noticed "in real time" that something was wrong. No neighbors testified. No employees in the educational frameworks of any of the children testified.
This does not mean that the complainant's version has no support. Her testimony is supported by the testimony of her two adult daughters, A. and B. In addition, the complainant's testimony is supported by the testimony of her mother, the testimony of the welfare workers, and the testimony of the children's investigator [these testimonies support the complainant's version only in a qualified and partial manner, and this is discussed below]. A very limited part of the complainant's descriptions was even partially confirmed by the defendant during his testimony before me.