Criminal Case (Haifa) 19071-09-18 State of Israel v. Anonymous - part 15

Mr. Tayeb's testimony:

219. In general, Mr. Tayeb's testimony is reliable to me. The witness replied honestly and openly, and it seems that he gave things as they were, without exaggerating or exaggerating anything.  However, it is doubtful in my opinion whether his testimony makes any contribution to the clarification of the issues in dispute.  Tayeb was a "guest for a moment" at the defendant's home, in a small number of cases.  He claimed that he did not notice any unusual behavior in the house, during the few incidents he was there.  It is clear that there is nothing in this.  After all, there is no claim that the acts attributed to the defendant were committed in the presence of others, other than members of the nuclear family.

Testimony of the defendant's brother:

220. Naturally, it appears that the defendant's brother sought to assist him during his testimony before me. This, of course, does not show, G-d forbid, that the defendant's brother gave testimony that is not true testimony.  However, his testimony must be examined with the necessary caution.  Thus, for example, the witness did not identify in his brother a growing tendency to observe the commandments of religion (a tendency that the defendant himself did not deny).  This means that I am exposed.  The witness's statements regarding the complainant's mother, and the claim that she incited her grandchildren against the defendant, with slurs and sweet words, also show that the witness has a well-formed opinion regarding the main "culprit" in filing the complaint against the defendant.  The same is true with respect to the witness's claim that the complainant has connections with the welfare authorities, which she harnessed for her benefit.
221. In addition, the witness stated that he had "soul talks" with the complainant, including on personal matters, and that she never told the witness about any problem in her relationship with the accused. However, it should be noted in this context that during the complainant's very long cross-examination, she was not asked to address this point and no question was asked about the degree of her closeness to the defendant's brother.
222. In any event, and this is the main thing, the complainant did not reveal to anyone what her heart was all about, and she did not tell anyone about the defendant's behavior. Not even to her own mother (with whom she had an incomparably closer relationship than she had with the defendant's brother).  Hence, the mere fact that the complainant did not tell a witness that his younger brother was harming her, threatening her, intimidating her and her children – does not teach anything about the reliability of the complainant's version.
223. Sometimes, when the witness met all the family members, at family gatherings, it seems that, like Mr. Tayeb's testimony, this testimony also contributes nothing to clarifying the points in dispute.

The acts detailed in the indictment - an aggregate view:

224. As detailed in detail above, the prosecution witnesses' version is immeasurably more acceptable to me than the defense's version. I am of the opinion that these witnesses, in particular the complainant and daughters A and B, gave accurate and reliable testimony of the events and experiences that they had during their lives in the same house with the defendant.  These testimonies not only support each other, but are also supported by the other versions of the prosecution's witnesses, first and foremost the treatment agents who accompanied the complainant and her children, years after they left the family home.

The defendant, on the other hand, gave a laconic and denial version, which mainly included accusing the complainant, her mother, welfare and treatment agencies, and did not spare the police any of his criticism.  I did not find that this version casts doubt as to the reliability of the versions that arise from the testimony of the complainant and her daughters.

225. Still, we are dealing with a criminal trial. And for the purpose of conviction, the accuser is required to prove, in relation to each and every one of the events described in the indictment, that an evidentiary basis was laid to prove their commission, at the required level of specificity and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, I will discuss below each of the events described in the indictment, and the sufficiency of the evidence brought by the accuser to prove it.

226. Section 3.1 of the indictment: Threats to the complainant that he would kill her; Threats that he would throw a bottle of wine at her:

• In her main interrogation, the complainant stated that the defendant had repeatedly threatened to kill her. The frequency of the threats increased, even in the presence of the children.
• Only in her cross-examination did she relate for the first time to an incident of threatening to throw a bottle of wine (a threat of this wording appears in the complainant's interrogation with the police on 2 November 2015 - N/2, para. 8). The complainant explained that she had indeed heard a threat from the defendant that he would throw a bottle of wine at her, but that this threat was not "dramatic" in her eyes.  The defendant did not pick up or wave a bottle of wine at her.  The threat in this wording was not made in close proximity to the threat of murder.  It was said on one of the evenings of Shabbat, in the three months preceding her departure from home (p. 92).
• stated in her testimony that she heard the defendant threaten the complainant several times (at least on two occasions) that he would kill her.
• stated in her testimony that on many occasions, especially on Friday evenings, the defendant threatened the complainant in front of the children that he would murder her. It also reached the point of taking a knife from the table.

227. What emerges from the compilation: As stated, the testimony of the complainant is reliable to me, and so is the case with regard to the testimony of the daughters, A. and B. The aggregate combination of the three testimonies shows that the accuser was able to prove, in accordance with the standard required in a criminal proceeding, that during the course of 2015 the defendant threatened the complainant, several times, that he would kill her.  This is consistent with both the testimony of the complainant and the testimony of daughters A and B.  As for the additional incident attributed to the defendant, according to which he threatened the complainant that he would throw a bottle of wine at her, the said act was learned only from the testimony of the complainant.  Admittedly, it is certainly possible to convict the defendant on the basis of the complainant's testimony alone, in light of the reliability of her testimony, and the fact that she tried to be as precise as possible in providing details.  However, one wonders how any of the family members, who were sitting around the table in that situation, did not remember that such a threat was made.  Therefore, there remains a doubt, the slightest one, regarding the defendant's statement relating to the throwing of the bottle of wine.  The defendant will benefit from this provider.
228. Therefore, I determine that it has been proven to me that the defendant threatened the complainant, on a number of occasions during 2015, that he would kill her. Doubt remains regarding the accuser's claim that the defendant also threatened the complainant that he would throw a bottle of wine at her.
229. Section 3.2 of the indictment (strangulation of the complainant on the night of September 1-2, 2015):

• The complainant told about this incident in all four of her police interrogations [P/1-4], in addition, of course, to her testimony before me. A comparison of the versions shows that there are a number of wording differences.  However, the common denominator for all versions is similar: the complainant was sleeping in the room of daughters A and B, and woke up feeling that she could not breathe and that something was on her neck.  The complainant heard the defendant say to her, "Why are you doing this to me?" and told him to stop.  The defendant stopped his actions, the complainant got out of bed and saw various objects in the room, and also noticed that her phone had disappeared.  She saw the defendant behaving normally, and the child C., who told her that he had seen the defendant and heard him say that the complainant would not survive.
• As stated, the core of the complainant's version is fixed. There are a number of differences, which, in my opinion, do not drop the ground below the main description [in her first interrogation with the police, she did not mention the involvement of child C; in some of the descriptions the complainant stated that she shouted to the defendant to stop, and in some that she told him to stop; there are differences in the versions as to the nature of the object placed on her neck, etc.).
• In addition, B. testified that she heard about the incident from her grandmother (the complainant's mother, Mrs. Peretz) a few weeks before they left the house. This version is inconsistent with the complainant's testimony, according to which her mother heard about the incident from her only a few days before they left the house.  I believe that here too we are dealing with a difference that is not significant.
• I will emphasize that I ignored Child C's version, as it appears in Ms. Anat Freiman's social report of 19 July 2016 (P/59). This is, of course, a testimony from hearsay.  did not testify in court.  Moreover, Ms. Freiman testified that G. was not willing to speak to her about the incident, and hence his words about the incident were not fully clarified.

230. I am of the opinion that the accuser was able to prove the incident described in paragraph 3.2 of the indictment. What is stated in this section is based almost entirely on the complainant's version.  However, this is reliable and consistent testimony.  I have not found that the differences in wording are sufficient to crack the credibility of the complainant.  It is difficult to assume that someone who has experienced a traumatic event will repeat it several times without any change in any detail.  The complainant's case is also no different.  She gave a detailed description of the incident, anchoring it in time, place, and circumstances.  She did not intensify the incident, nor did she describe the defendant in a one-dimensional manner (for example, she noted that after the fact, he offered her a drink or a pill).  She repeatedly described the incident, aware that parts of it sounded, in retrospect, puzzling (this was the case with regard to the defendant's conduct after the fact; so with regard to what her son said to her, G.).  In my opinion, the differences between the versions, even if they exist, are not dramatic.  The core of the description of the act remains unchanged.
231. On the other hand, I do not give any credence to the defendant's version that nothing ever happened, and that it may be a nightmare on the part of the complainant, or a lie that was invented in order to accuse him of falsehood. I will note in this context – the complainant is not delusional, and in my impression – she is connected to reality in every repeated sentence.  It has the power to distinguish between reality and dream.  The description given by the complainant in her testimony is realistic and reliable.
232. One can, of course, wonder why the complainant did not cry out and complain to the police immediately. Why did two more months pass before she got up and "took action?"  However, in my opinion, we are dealing with "wisdom be-di'avad."  The complainant's actions should not be examined through the prism of a rational and calculated person who sits comfortably in his office.  There is a real complexity in cases in which a woman suffers from ongoing and long-term violence at the hands of her housemate, spouse and the father of her children.  I will mention that the complainant did not contact the police on her own initiative even after two months.  She first sought help in order to initiate a divorce proceeding.  This conduct of the complainant does not indicate that the act described by her is a nightmare or a fabrication, as the defense claims.
233. Therefore, I determine that the accuser proved the incident described in paragraph 3.2 of the indictment, and with the degree of certainty required in a criminal trial.
234. Section 3.3 of the indictment (threats to the complainant that he would kill her because she touched his documents):

• What is stated in this section is based on the complainant's version, both in her testimony before me (p. 56) and during her police interrogation (P/1, para. 36). The complainant gave a detailed description of the incident, including its exact date (30 October 2015), and the fact that it was an unusual shouting, which caused two of the children (D and F) to pour their water on their clothes.
• The complainant's testimony is supported by the testimony of B., who was lying in her bed in the next room and heard the defendant shouting angrily at the complainant because she had touched his documents. 's version is consistent with that of the complainant regarding the date of the incident (B. noted in her testimony that the incident took place after she had already heard that the defendant had tried to strangle the complainant).  B. even heard the complainant tell the defendant that "two of the children missed it."  B. did not hear the defendant threatening to kill the complainant (which also explains why she did not address this incident during her police interrogation).
• The defendant's version: a sweeping denial of the incident, as if it had never happened.

235. What emerges from the compilation: As a rule, the complainant's reliable testimony is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the accuser proved what is attributed to the defendant in this section of the indictment. However, the complainant's testimony is also supported by the testimony of daughter B., who remembers the incident.  Although B. remembered a fight that the complainant touched documents belonging to the defendant, she remembered the defendant shouting at the complainant, and also that because of that incident, two of the minor children poured their water on their clothes.  did not remember hearing a threat from the defendant that he would kill the complainant.  I believe that this does not lead to the conclusion that the threat was not heard.  This is an event from the wee hours of the night.  B. was not in the room where the defendant and the complainant were present, but rather in an adjacent room.  As B. also noted in her testimony, and I accept this explanation – the expression "I will kill you" is not extreme and dramatic in her eyes, since she has heard the defendant express himself in this way towards the complainant many times.
236. Therefore, I determine that the accuser has proved, with the degree of certainty required in a criminal trial, the event dated in section 3.3 of the indictment.
237. Section 3.4 of the indictment – Throwing a laundry dispenser at the complainant, during 2014:

• The complainant noted that the incident took place after the girl D. was already two years old. The defendant threw the laundry dryer in her direction, which hit her abdomen.  In her cross-examination, she noted that she did not suffer any signs of injury.  This is not a matter of lifting the device and throwing it away, but more about pushing the device.  This is an act that was carried out by force and intentionally.
• In her first two interrogations with the police, the complainant did not mention the incident. The matter came up in her third interrogation on 6 December 2015 (P/3), after Hilda D. told about the incident during her interrogation.
• 's interrogation before the children's investigator (P/6) – the girl described throwing the laundry dryer at the complainant, and that the complainant had a red mark on her forehead. It should be emphasized that regarding this incident, the children's investigator had difficulty assessing reliability, in view of the paucity of details regarding it.

238. What emerges from the compilation: It seems that it is precisely the circumstances of the exposure of the incident, and the gaps between the complainant's words and D.'s description, that lend a touch of credibility to the incident. It appears that the complainant did not remember the incident at all, and only after the girl D. raised the matter did she confirm its existence.  In addition, D. raised the matter during the interrogation of the children on 16 November 2015, even before the family therapy began (which began on 11 April 2016, as indicated by the report of social worker Yitzhak Maoz - P/4).  The complainant did not intensify the description of the act, nor did she confirm D.'s claim that she had suffered a sign of injury.  In view of the reliability of the complainant's version, I determine that there is no reasonable doubt, and that it has been proved, to the extent necessary in a criminal proceeding, that this incident did indeed occur.
239. Section 3.5 of the indictment – Throwing a plate of fish at the complainant, during 2013:

• The complainant spoke about the incident during her third police interrogation, on December 6, 2015 (P/3), and during her testimony before me. On all the occasions on which the incident was described, the complainant insisted that the plate was thrown at her but shattered on the floor, and did not hit her.
• In her second interrogation with the police, dated 7 September 2016 (N/6), A. stated that she remembered such an incident on Friday evening, which took place "a very long time ago". The plate didn't hit the complainant, but the wall.  She made similar statements during her testimony before [p. 198 of the transcript].
• In her second interrogation with the police, dated 8 September 2016 (N/8), B. stated that the defendant threw a plate at the complainant, but did not hit her.
• told the children's investigator that at the time the plate was thrown away, she was in the bathroom. When she returned to the dining table, she saw marks on the complainant's clothes (fish sauce and shells).  The children's investigator had difficulty assessing the reliability of this incident.
• On 16 November 2015, child F was interrogated by the children's investigator [P/7], and denied that anything had happened to his mother at home.
• The defendant claimed that such an incident did not occur, although it is possible that during a meal a plate falls and breaks, or a plate flies to the ceiling.

240. What emerges from the compilation: In view of the reliable testimonies of the complainant, A. and B., I am of the opinion that the incident described in paragraph 3.5 of the indictment did indeed occur. However, in view of the clear testimonies of the complainant, A. and B., it is clear that the success that the defendant threw at the complainant did not harm her.  Naturally, this determination will also have an impact on the question of the defendant's conviction of the offense attributed to him (and more on that below).
241. Section 3.5 of the indictment – Throwing a knife at the complainant, who harmed child F:

• In her main interrogation, the complainant recounted one incident, around the Shabbat table, when the defendant threw a knife at her and accidentally hit child F, who was sitting next to her. She also discussed this version in her cross-examination, and explained that she raised it only during her fourth police interrogation (P/4) because she was asked about it (pp. 108-109 of the transcript).
• Daughter A. mentioned the incident in her two police interrogations – on 22 November 2015 [F/7] and on 8 September 2016 [F/8]. In her first interrogation, she stated that there was an incident with a "plate of glass and a fork" that hit child F., and that the defendant tried to appease W.  In her second interrogation, she added that the incident took place on Friday evening, and that the defendant was angry that there had been talk during Shabbat songs.  She thinks that a fork hit child F, and that the defendant got up to hug him.  She made similar statements during her testimony before me.
• The accuser submitted a social report dated 19 July 2016, by the witness Anat Freiman [P/59], in which the child V's attitude to this incident is described. Naturally, this is hearsay testimony that should not be regarded as evidence of software veracity.  I will therefore ignore what is stated in the report on this subject.

242. What emerges from the compilation: Child F did not mention the incident during his interrogation to the children's investigator. However, he is a young boy (born on August 8, 2010, about five years old at the time of his interrogation).  I am of the opinion that the mere fact that V. did not tell about an incident that took place during 2013 does not mean that the incident did not take place.  On the basis of the reliable testimony of the complainant and A., I am of the opinion that it can be determined that the incident in which the defendant threw some cutlery at the complainant, and inadvertently harmed child F, was proven to me to the extent required in criminal cases.  As for the defense's claims regarding the "contamination" of the interrogation and the coordination of testimonies during the family treatments, these do not raise any doubt as to the reliability of the complainant's and A.'s version.  In this context, I will mention that A. did not participate in the treatments at all within the family, and therefore the concern that the interrogation will be "contaminated" at this point is very low.
243. Therefore, I determine that the accuser proved the occurrence of the incident mentioned in section 3.5 of the indictment (throwing cutlery at the complainant, who harmed child F), and to the extent required in a criminal trial.
244. Section 3.6 of the indictment – Assaulting the complainant with kicks and pushing, on many occasions in view of the complainant's refusal to have sexual relations with the accused:

• The indictment in this matter is based solely on the testimony of the complainant. The complainant described in her fourth interrogation with the police [P/4] that the defendant would push her and hit her in the back and legs, when she refused to have sex with him.  During her testimony in court, she also noted that from the outset, when she refused to have sexual relations with the defendant, she used to sleep in the living room.  But then the defendant would throw her clothes out of the bedroom closet, and the children would see her clothes thrown away.
• Not without hesitation, I believe that there remains reasonable doubt as to the occurrence of these events. Admittedly, the complainant's testimony is reliable to me.  However, the events described in paragraph 3.6 of the indictment are particularly serious, and therefore it would have been expected that the matter would have come up during the complainant's initial interrogations with the police (during November 2015), and not during her fourth interrogation in September 2016.  I did not find in the complainant's testimony a convincing explanation for the suppression of the testimony on this point for such a long time.  In contrast to other events that arose in the later stages of the investigation, here we are not dealing with events that arose during family treatments, nor events that the complainant recalled a few months later [the report prepared by social worker Stacy Schwartzglass Water on November 2, 2015, makes a general statement similar in the content to the events detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the indictment].  In addition, none of the children supported the complainant's version that the defendant used to throw her clothes on the floor in the living room.  The children were not asked about this in their interrogations or in their testimony.  Moreover, and even this is in contrast to the other events described in section 3 of the indictment – section 3.6 is not limited in time, nor is it in a general and approximate manner.  The time frame is very comprehensive – "on many occasions", and in the relevant period (i.e., between 2003 and 2015).  No attempt was made to reduce the time limit or to point out even some of the specific events.  Naturally, this conduct of the accuser makes it difficult for the defendant to defend himself.

245. What emerges from the compilation: Doubt remains as to the occurrence of the events described in paragraph 3.6 of the indictment. The defendant will benefit from this provider.
246. Section 4.1 of the indictment – threats against the children; Threats to B. that "it will be her end" and that he will break her teeth.

• The complainant said in her main interrogation that the defendant used to say various expressions to the children, such as "stupid", "retarded", and "I wish you died". He said to A., "As far as I'm concerned, you should commit suicide."  He told B. during a meal that if they asked to go to the bathroom again, he would not allow them to go.  He threatened B. that if she spoke, he would break her teeth.  In her interrogation with the police on December 6, 2015 (P/3), she mentioned the nicknames he used to refer to the children.
• In her interrogation with the police, B. stated that the defendant threatened her on "countless occasions", that the wording of the threats included, for example, sentences such as "I will put you in the wall", and that he threatened her that she would "be beaten" as much as the child C. In her testimony in court, she noted that the defendant used to threaten to slap and slam the wall, and sometimes even carried out his threats (mainly slapping).  He threatened her that she would be slapped, and she lived in fear that the defendant would carry out his threats.
• stated in her testimony that the house was run by shouting and making threats, and that the violence against her was mainly expressed in threats and slapping. In her interrogation with the police on 22 November 2015 (P/7), she noted that the defendant used to threaten her that he would hit her and that he would "blow her in the face".
• The defendant denied that he had threatened any of his children to harm them.

247. What emerges from the compilation: From the complainant's reliable testimonies, A. and B., a picture emerges according to which the defendant used to approach his children in a verbal violent manner, and sometimes accompanied by physical violence. The forms of expression vary.  It is not possible to expect any member of the household to remember every expression and every "pearl."  Not in terms of the date and circumstances, nor in terms of the exact manner of expression.  In addition, and since it can be assumed that a different event was engraved in each of the testimony, it is only natural that there will be differences in wording.  This does not indicate a lack of reliability.

Of course, in this context, duplication should be avoided.  The statements attributed to the defendant in section 4.1 towards B, which relate to the threat of injury to her teeth, are the statements attributed to the defendant in section 4.2 (and these will be discussed below).  In addition, some of the statements attributed to the defendant are curses and insults, not threats; Some of them fall within the scope of exercising "parental authority", which, even if it is strict and angry, does not constitute a threat (more on this later, in the chapter on the legal discussion).

248. I therefore determine that the accuser has proved, to the extent necessary in a criminal proceeding, that the defendant used to threaten his children, on various occasions, with bodily harm. The statements were made in different versions, but the machine they have in common is the threat of actual bodily harm [e.g., I'll slap you, I'll push you against the wall, this will be your end, etc.].
249. Section 4.2 of the indictment - During 2014, the defendant threatened B. that if she continued to speak, he would beat her and her whole mouth hurt. In addition, on an unknown date, he threatened B. that if she said one more word, she would get a slap and be able to count all her teeth.

• The complainant noted in her testimony in court that at Shabbat dinner, the defendant told B. that if she spoke, she would count her teeth in her hands.
• stated in her testimony that one day in 2014 she suffered from toothache, and the defendant told her that if she continued to speak, he would hit her in the mouth so that all her teeth would hurt. In her cross-examination, she noted that the threat had been made about a year before her interrogation by the police, and that there had been one such incident (p. 186 of the transcript).  She is not convinced that the complainant was present, and may have told the complainant about it that day.  She does not remember that the defendant told her that she could count all the changes.  She remembers that the defendant threatened to hit her and all her teeth would hurt.
• stated in her interrogation that the defendant threatened B. with threats such as "I'll break your teeth," or that he would hit her with "a slap like never you were ever given."

250. What emerges from the compilation: In light of B.'s reliable testimony, which is also supported by A.'s testimony, I determine that it has been proven to me that during Shabbat dinner, at an unknown date in 2014, the defendant threatened B. that if she did not stop talking, he would beat her and cause her pain in her mouth or teeth. 's version is also supported by the complainant's testimony.  However, B. expressed doubt as to whether the complainant was present at the event, or whether she heard about it that day.  In any event, the testimony of A and B is sufficient to establish a finding regarding the occurrence of the incident as it arises from B's testimony.  In addition, and in light of B.'s clear testimony, I determine that such an incident occurred once (and not as attributed to the defendant in the indictment – twice in section 4.2 of the indictment and once again, as stated in section 4.1 of the indictment).
251. Section 4.3 of the indictment – On an unknown date between 2014 and 2015, during a Shabbat meal, the defendant slapped B. in the face because she leaned her chin on a bottle of drink.

• What is stated in this section of the indictment is based entirely on the testimony of B. She stated, both in her main and cross-examination, and during her interrogations with the police (on 22 November 2015 and 7 September 2016) that the defendant slapped her face because she leaned her chin on a plastic bottle during Friday dinner.
• The defendant denied that such an incident ever took place.

252. None of the members of the household gave any information about such an incident in their police interrogations or testimony. None of B. remembered any of the people who were present during the meal.  In addition, B. was not convinced whether the incident occurred during the years 2014-2015, or earlier.  During her main interrogation, she stated that the incident took place about three years before her first police interrogation (i.e., during 2012).  However, I got the impression that the event was firmly rooted in B.'s memory, who also did not try to enhance it or exaggerate its description.  As I noted above, B.'s testimony is reliable to me, and she tried to be as precise as possible during her testimony before me.

In view of B.'s reliable testimony, I determine that it has been proven before me that the occurrence of the incident described in paragraph 4.3 of the indictment occurred.

253. Section 4.4 of the indictment – repeated beatings of child C, including the defendant used to bring G. into the shower room and beat him there, while shouting at him, forbidding him to close his eyes and forbidding him to cry.

• The complainant stated in her interrogation (see the example – pp. 50-51, 60-61 of the transcript) that the defendant would beat G. frequently. However, when she was asked to describe in detail incidents of violence in which the defendant beat G. in the bathroom, she gave a statement about the incident described in paragraph 4.6 of the indictment ("the bicycle incident"; p. 51 of the transcript).  Moreover, the complainant stated that the defendant beat G. for a variety of "reasons" – including improper arrangement of the cutlery, or crumbs on the floor (ibid.).
• In her testimony, B. mentioned one incident that took place during a Shabbat/holiday meal, during which she saw G. walking towards the bathroom, and the defendant ran after him. Everyone sitting at the table heard the defendant's punches at G., while telling G. that he would show him "who is the man in the house" (p. 170 of the transcript).  She also noted that G. was the main victim, and that the defendant would beat him "without mercy."
• noted in her testimony that the defendant would beat G. frequently, "trampling him," even after he was lying on the floor (p. 197 of the transcript).
• was interrogated twice by a pediatric investigator [on November 16, 2015 and November 29, 2015; P/8]. On no occasion did he say that the defendant had hurt him.
• himself did not come to court to give testimony. According to the accuser's statement, G. refused to testify in court, and the accuser chose not to force his arrival and to request a summons in his case.
• The defendant denied ever harming G.

254. What emerges from the compilation is that the three witnesses (the complainant and daughters A and B) gave reliable testimony, as detailed in detail above. Each of them appears to describe a different specific incident in which they saw, heard, or concluded that the defendant had hit G.  In my understanding, each of the testimonies describes a different situation and a different occasion in which G. was beaten by the defendant.  However, what their testimony has in common is the statement that G. served as a "punching bag" for the defendant, who beat him on various occasions.  I will emphasize that there is not a single testimony or evidence before me to support the allegation in section 4.4 of the indictment, according to which the defendant used to bring G. into the shower room, beat him there while shouting at him to open his eyes, and while forbidding him to cry.
255. refused to appear in court and testify, while in his interrogations (before the children's investigator and the police) he denied any acts of violence against him. No solid factual basis was placed before me as to the reason for G.'s refusal to testify.
256. In these circumstances, and even without G.'s testimony, it can be determined, based on the reliable testimonies of the complainant and daughters A. and B., that the defendant hit G. several times. However, and in the absence of sufficient detail in the indictment, I cannot determine the circumstances in which the defendant struck G.  As for the specific events described in this section (entering the shower room and beating him there, while it is forbidden to close his eyes and forbidden to cry), I do not have any description in the testimonies of any of the prosecution's testimonies that supports the said claim.

In summary, even without G.'s testimony, it can be determined that the accuser proved, to the extent necessary in a criminal proceeding, that the defendant used to slap G. on various occasions.  It was not proven to me that the defendant used to bring G. into the room and the shower and beat him there, while forbidding him to close his eyes or cry.

257. Section 4.5 of the indictment – the defendant used to slap and kick G. when complaints came from the school about G.'s performance; On one occasion, the defendant threatened G. that he would take him to the forest and leave him there.

• The complainant referred to these incidents on a number of occasions in her testimony. In her main interrogation, she noted that when G. arrived with a letter from the school, the girls (A. and B.) would beg her not to disclose it to the defendant.  She also noted that the beatings that G. received were not so terrible, such as the threat to G. that on Friday he would not go to his grandmother's house, but would stay alone with the defendant at home.  On another occasion in her testimony, she said that after a report was received about G.'s violence at school, the defendant "interrogated" G. about the details of the incident.
• In her statement to the police, A. said that the defendant used to punish and beat G., when G. did not listen to him or when he "made a mess" at school. This has happened countless times.  In her testimony before A., A. did not link the violent incidents to reports about G.'s performance at school.
• As stated above, G. did not testify in court, and in his interrogations (P/8) there is no reference or version that confirms what is alleged in section 4.5 of the indictment.
• The defendant denied ever harming G.

258. What emerges from the compilation: Despite the reliable testimonies of the complainant and A., I am of the opinion that the accuser did not prove, with the degree of certainty required in a criminal trial, what is stated in section 4.5 of the indictment.

In general, the complainant's testimony is inconsistent with what is described in section 4.5 above.  The complainant described one incident of "interrogation" of G. (she did not give any mention of violence in her testimony).  As for the other incidents, she said that the main thing was a threat to G. that he would not go to the complainant's parents' house on Fridays.  The complainant did not elaborate in her testimony regarding violent incidents, and the accuser, and her reasons with her, did not seek to expand or elaborate on the complainant's testimony on this point.  As for daughter A, she gave in her testimony about incidents of violence by the defendant against G., but did not link them to reports from the school.  This was stated only in A.'s statement (which was submitted by the defense, and not as evidence of the veracity of its content).  On this point, too, the accuser did not bother to elaborate and refine A.'s testimony.  To this, of course, we must add the evidentiary difficulty that arises from the fact that G. himself did not testify, and in his statements did not corroborate the accuser's claims regarding what is attributed to the defendant in section 4.5 of the indictment.