Indeed, during the therapeutic sessions, content relating to the complainant and her children's shared experiences during the joint residence with the defendant came up from time to time. Naturally, some of those events are described in the indictment. However, as it appears from the testimony of the caregivers, the complainant did not bring up these contents, but the children, and the complainant sat and listened (see, for example, the testimony of Ms. Freiman, p. 237 of the transcript). In addition, the discourse surrounding those events was not factual-evidentiary (who did it, what did it, who was present at the scene), and did not deal with the expected testimony. Among the attendees, and with the mediation of the therapeutic elements, a therapeutic discourse took place, which focused on the feelings of each person, in an attempt to process the events, and to adopt tools for coping with the feelings that arose. In my opinion, this discourse did not "contaminate" the interrogation, and it certainly did not lead to the giving of false testimony in the framework of the proceeding before me (see in this context the testimony of Ms. Freiman – p. 238 of the transcript).
A.'s testimony - general:
- gave her testimony to me on 18 November 2019. A.'s excitement could be easily discerned – both from the situation and from the forced encounter with the defendant (whom she had not seen for several years). Despite her excitement, A. gave her testimony confidently and quietly. It was evident that A. wanted to be as precise as possible in giving her testimony, and that during the course of giving her testimony, she was repeatedly overwhelmed with feelings and feelings "from a real time". This was especially evident in her responses when she referred in her testimony to the defendant's attitude toward her brother, G. A. did not give one-dimensional testimony. Despite her open anger towards the defendant, she concluded her main testimony by wishing him well with his new family, and that she was not interested in "harboring hatred," as she put it (p. 199 of the transcript). In my opinion, A. gave authentic testimony and to the best of her recollection – whether or not the words were consistent with what is described in the indictment [thus, for example, she added the first incident of physical violence that she remembers, when she was 9 years old – p. 195 of the transcript]. It was evident, and contrary to the defense's argument, that it was not preoccupied with the question of incriminating the defendant, but rather wished to give details of the events she experienced while living in the house with the defendant. Thus, for example, A. insisted that she did not remember an incident in which the defendant threatened the complainant while accusing her of touching his documents [pp. 207-208 of the transcript]; Thus, for example, A. clarified that the violent incident in which the defendant slammed the phone at her was a single incident, and not as described in the indictment [p. 201 of the transcript].
- I therefore give full weight to A.'s testimony, and determine that in her testimony A. gave true testimony, and things as they were.
B.'s testimony - general:
- gave her testimony to me on 18 November 2019. In my opinion, B. gave an impressive, detailed and accurate testimony. She described the events she experienced vividly and clearly. Thus, for example, when B. was asked whether the voices she heard beyond the door might not have been the sounds of the defendant hitting G., the witness demonstrated the sounds she heard, while striking her thigh hard with her hand. It was evident in B.'s face and body language that this demonstration "flooded" her with the memory of that event. B. was interrogated in a long, poignant and exhaustive cross-examination. She answered all questions honestly and openly, while not sparing herself criticism (and it is possible that she still carries feelings of guilt). Thus, for example, she referred to herself as the defendant's "policewoman", who made sure that his "laws" were implemented by the rest of the household. In addition, B. did not give one-dimensional testimony, and despite her open anger towards the defendant, she did not describe him in black only. Thus, for example, she stated that there were also good times and "laughter at home" [p. 168 and p. 181 of the transcript].
- 's testimony was full of emotion, and it was clear that B. was giving testimony "from her heart." It was difficult not to notice B.'s anger at her father, whom she refused to refer to during her testimony as "father" [p. 174 of the transcript], and even on one occasion, when she called him by that nickname, she sought to correct herself [p. 170 of the transcript]. B. even addressed the defendant directly during her cross-examination, accusing him of justifying the beatings of his children all these years because "this is how they should be educated," while now he claims that things did not exist and were not created [p. 193 of the transcript]. At the end of her testimony, she turned to the court, with great excitement, and asked that justice be done to the defendant.
- For my determination, and in a clear manner, B. gave in her testimony about events that are engraved in her memory to this day. I reject with both hands the defense's arguments that B. fabricated events from her heart, or that she gave testimony that was coordinated with the complainant. Her testimony left a strong and clear impression of someone who has details and events from her memory. Not as someone who memorized the story of an event that did not exist and was not created.
- I therefore give full weight to B.'s testimony.
Testimony of the complainant's mother - general:
- Peretz gave her testimony to me on 8 September 2019. The witness did not hide her heart for the defendant. These are natural feelings and feelings, since according to the witness, the defendant harmed her daughter and grandchildren for many years. However, the witness gave her testimony in a restrained manner, while trying to be as precise as possible. I am unable to accept the defense's argument that this is a person who chose to charge the defendant with false accusation.
- I accept as reliable the testimony of the witness, insofar as it relates to the manner in which the complainant disclosed – in the presence or in the presence of the witness – the matter of the harm to her at the hands of the accused. These descriptions are consistent with the complainant's version (whose testimony, as stated above, is acceptable and reliable to me). I did not find any indication that the witness conspired to incriminate the defendant, or that she incited her grandchildren against the defendant (the accusation that also arose in the testimony of the defendant's brother, in the framework of the defense case – p. 283 of the transcript).
- I also accept as reliable the testimony of Ms. Peretz, insofar as it relates to the change that has taken place in the defendant with regard to strict observance of religious observance. This is consistent with the reliable testimonies of the complainant and girls A and B (and confirmation of this can even be found, even if indirectly, in the defense summaries – see, for example, paragraph 14 of the summaries).
- I do not accept the testimony of the witness, as evidence of the truth of the content, in relation to the events that the complainant gave her. This is hearsay testimony. I reject the accuser's argument that Ms. Peretz's testimony is an exception to hearsay testimony. The events detailed in the indictment were carried out for many months before the complainant told the witness about their occurrence. The latest of these (the "suffocation incident") was carried out in early September. According to Ms. Peretz's testimony, she first heard from the complainant about the incident during the month of November (p. 10 of the transcript). It is clear that this is not a description that was given in close proximity to the incident, and it is certainly not acceptable to accept the accuser's claim that this was the "first opportunity to complain" in which the complainant told her mother about the violent incidents that were her lot [this claim of the accuser is also inconsistent with the testimony of the complainant herself, who stated that she first reported the defendant's actions to Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu in Safed – p. 42 of the transcript].
Testimony of the children's investigator - general:
- In my opinion, the children's investigator, Ms. Hemo, gave professional, detailed, thorough and impartial testimony. There is no indication – neither in the interrogations she conducted nor during her testimony before me – of a trend of incrimination or "taking sides" on the part of the witness. In addition, the witness detailed in her testimony what is the basis for her impression of the testimonies of the children whom she interrogated. I did not find that the cross-examination was intended to undermine the witness's findings or conclusions.
- In this context, it should be remembered that it is not the role of the children's investigator to conduct a "cross-examination" of the child being interrogated, nor to confront him with facts from the investigation file [cf. Criminal Appeal 2686/15 Bento v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (5 March 2017)]. The children's investigator's impression of the reliability of the child's statements during his interrogation is made from what the interrogee said. For this very reason, I did not even find any truth in the defense attorney's complaint, according to which in the "mandate" given to the children's investigator, he cannot determine that the child being interrogated is lying.
Testimonies of Welfare and Care Personnel - General:
- Due to the similarity in the characteristics of the testimonies, I will relate to the entirety of the testimonies of the treatment and welfare personnel as a single unit. All the witnesses described in their testimonies the course of treatment of the family members or the actions they took in relation to the family members, as the case may be. Their testimonies were professional, detailed and impartial. I categorically reject the claims that have been raised and the allusions that have been alluded to in relation to the alleged interest that any of them has in the outcome of the proceeding before me or in the outcome of the dispute between the defendant and the complainant. No support was brought to these claims and insinuations, and it seems to me that it would have been better if there had been no allegations.
- In general, the impression that emerges from the testimonies of social workers and therapists is similar. Their testimonies raised concerns expressed by the complainant and the children. The difficulty of most of them to continue to meet the defendant. None of the care and welfare personnel who have been accompanying the family for years have raised the possibility that any of the children suffer from parental alienation syndrome. None of the therapists, who accompanied the complainant and her children for years, got the impression that it was impersonation, fairy tales, made-up fears that had nothing behind them, fears that did not exist and were not created.
The mental state of all the family members, as it emerges from the testimonies of the welfare and treatment officials and the reports they compiled, is consistent with the reliable testimony of the complainant and daughters A and B. In addition, this state of mind (the signs of which are still evident to this day) supports the prosecution's version.
- However, and with regard to what the welfare officials heard from the complainant and the children, in relation to the events described in the indictment, this is second-hand testimony. It is clear that we are dealing with testimony from hearsay, and the words cannot be used as evidence of the truth of their content. In this context, I reject the accuser's argument that the statements that Ms. Schwarzglass heard (which were put in writing – P/1) and which originated from the words that the complainant gave her in their meeting on November 1, 2015 – are an exception to hearsay testimony. The complainant gave these things to Ms. Schwartzglass weeks after they occurred. It is clear that these are not words that were said shortly after the incident, nor even at the first opportunity to complain.
Evaluation of the defense's testimonies: