The evidentiary support for the complainant's version is not in every detail. There is no evidence or testimony that corroborates the complainant's version, from beginning to end. However, it should be remembered that the complainant's version spans many events, and over a period of years. These were all events that took place in the family home, and in the presence of family members only. Some of the events described took place 'in private rooms', and in the presence of the defendant and the complainant only. Naturally, the perspective of each witness is different. The limitations of human memory are known and clear. This does not indicate that the events described in the complainant's testimony did not take place. Thus, and for the sake of example only, if the complainant stated that a fish plate was thrown in her direction and hit the floor (without damaging it), while witness A stated that a fish plate was thrown and hit the wall – this is not a contradiction that goes to the root of the matter. Thus, as another example, with regard to the complainant's testimony that a knife was thrown at her (which hit child F), while A. stated in her testimony that a "fork or cutlery was thrown".
- In light of the foregoing, I find it appropriate to give full weight to the testimony of the complainant before me, which I have found to be reliable.
- I did not find any basis for the defense's claim that the complainant acted in order to cause alienation between the defendant and his children. I also did not find any basis for the claim that there was coordination of versions or that the interrogation was tainted.
The testimonies indicate that the complainant did not try to prevent meetings between the defendant and the children, but rather the opposite: she encouraged her children to come to the contact center and meet the defendant. The defendant is the one who interrupted the meetings and refrained from contacting his children for many months (see, for example, the complainant's description of the manner in which the defendant refrained from attending meetings at the contact center - p. 75 of the transcript; see the testimony of Ms. Adi Ma'ayin-Guy that the complainant consented to the meetings between the children and the defendant at the contact center - p. 34 of the transcript; the testimony of Mr. Yitzhak Maoz that the defendant initiated the cessation of the meetings with the children at the contact center - 37 of the transcript; testimony of the caregiver, Ms. Anat Freiman, that the complainant pressured the children to come to meetings with the defendant at the contact center – p. 237 of the transcript).