Criminal Case (Haifa) 19071-09-18 State of Israel v. Anonymous - part 2

Testimony of Ruth Peretz - the complainant's mother:

9. In her main interrogation, the witness stated that during their married life, the complainant and the defendant were "secret and closed." The complainant first shared with her the existence of problems, when she told her that she wanted to divorce the defendant.  The witness accompanied the complainant to a meeting with the Chief Rabbi of Safed, as well as to a meeting with the detainee until the end of the proceedings or at WIZO, where she was referred to an attorney.  The witness accompanied the complainant to a meeting with the lawyer, where she heard the complainant's story.  The witness was also with the complainant when she came to the police station to give testimony.  The witness noted that they were taken to an investigation officer named Avi (but the witness was not with the complainant when her testimony was taken).  The witness noted that they visited the lawyer on Wednesday.  The next morning they went to the family court, and on Sunday morning they went to the welfare offices, and from there to the police station.
10. According to the witness, she heard from her daughter that on the night between September 1 and 2, daughters A and B received the defendant's permission to sleep with friends. The complainant slept in their room that night.  She woke up and felt someone choking her and putting gloves on his hands.  The complainant called on the defendant to stop.  After she recovered, the complainant saw the blanket from the bedroom - in the room, with daughter B.'s teddy bear lying on her neck.  The complainant's mobile phone was gone, and in the living room too, the landline phone was not found.  The complainant went into her room and saw that her closet had been broken into.  While she was sitting in the living room crying, the defendant brought her a glass of water.  The complainant went into the children's room, where she saw the child G. awake, and told her that he had heard his father (the defendant) tell the complainant that she "must die."
11. The witness described the relationship between the defendant and the complainant as that of a "king and a slave." Everyone was considerate of the defendant, even in the witness's own home.  It was the defendant who decided where the children would study, and demonstrated verbal violence towards the complainant and also towards the other members of the household.  When he discovered indecent photos on daughter B.'s cell phone, he told the witness that "my daughter is a prostitute."  She also recounted a case in which the defendant assaulted a nephew of his children (hereinafter: Minor Y.), due to concerns that he had harassed his daughter, Hilda B.
12. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that during her testimony to the police, she was asked to tell only about the complainant, and not about the children. The witness confirmed that during her interrogation with the police, she did not tell the complainant about the defendant's "strangulation incident".  The witness believes that the story is true, since she heard the complainant on several occasions tell of how her son G. heard the defendant say to the complainant, "You must die" – while the child G. told the same thing to the witness herself.
13. The witness insisted that the defendant used to physically and mentally abuse child C. She did not tell the police because she was asked by the interrogator not to talk about the children.  She also did not tell her attorney about it during an interview she conducted before her testimony.  The witness confirmed that no complaint was filed with the police regarding the assault of minor Y. by the defendant.
14. The witness confirmed that she did not like the defendant as the partner of her daughter, the complainant: the defendant imposed his religious lifestyle on his family members, and this also changed the life of the witness; The defendant persuaded the complainant to change her first name; The witness did not take kindly to the fact that the defendant idles at home and studies Torah, while the complainant bears the burden of making a living and raising the children; The defendant stopped attending family meals at the witness's home, because the way the complainant's sisters dressed bothered him. However, the witness insisted that she did not hate the defendant.  She turned to the defendant's brother in order for him to try to mediate between the defendant and the complainant.  The witness also noted that the complainant and her children lived in the witness's home for three years after separating from the defendant.  Therefore, the witness knows that the complainant and her young children used to go to joint treatments at the welfare office for more than a year (the two older daughters, A. and B., did not go to those therapy sessions).  The witness herself was never present at these treatments.

Testimony of Ms. Stacy Schwarzglass:

15. The witness stated in her main interrogation that she was a social worker by training, and that in the 15 years prior to her retirement, she had managed the Family Therapy Center in the Karmiel Municipality and the Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Violence. The witness met the complainant, when she arrived at the center with her mother, about four years ago.  The complainant spoke of a history of violence and an incident that took place a month before she arrived at the center, which was defined by both of them as an "attempted murder."  The witness was impressed by the high level of danger and recommended that the complainant contact the police immediately, and the complainant did so that day.  The witness prepared a report at the request of an investigator at the Karmiel police [P/1].
16. The witness said that she heard from the complainant that at night she felt that she was suffocating and that her husband was trying to strangle her with a blanket and that he may have had gloves on his hands. The complainant also told the witness that the defendant would force the complainant how to dress, restrict her, physically assault one of the children in the form of slaps, and that there was great fear in the house.  In light of the above, the witness was impressed by the high risk, and therefore recommended that the complainant contact the police immediately and even go to the shelter.
17. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that after the initial meeting, she saw that the complainant had come to the treatment center. She wrote her assessment of the danger to the complainant based on her meeting with the complainant on 1 November 2015.  The visitation arrangements with the defendant took place at a contact center, which is a protected place.  The witness first met the complainant's mother when she came to her with the complainant.  She does not know where the complainant's mother works.  She knows that the complainant and her children were in family care, and they would come to the contact center for meetings with the defendant.  The two older girls refused to come to the center.  The witness serves as an instructor for the social worker who treats the family members, and therefore she is aware that during the family treatments, the children's sense of fear arose, and that the complainant and the children spoke about this issue frequently during the treatment.

Testimony of Ms. Adi Ma'ayin-Guy:

18. The witness stated in her main interrogation that she works at a family therapy center in the municipality of Karmiel and currently runs the center. At the relevant time, she served as a social worker for legal procedures.  She was appointed by the Family Court to conduct a review of the defendant's family.  Before contacting the family, the complainant called the witness and told her that she was afraid that the defendant would kidnap the children and that the children were frightened for the meeting with the father.  The witness called the defendant on the same day, but he refused to speak to her.  The witness spoke with three of the minor children, and later the witness reported to the court that she was suspending the visitation arrangements in their current form, and that the visitation arrangements would take place at a contact center until an in-depth investigation was conducted.  In order to prepare the report, the witness met with the complainant, the defendant and the children, and also received educational reports about the minors.  The witness signed the report on September 21, 2015 [P/2].  According to the report, the visitation arrangements as determined between the defendant and the complainant should be temporarily stopped, and meetings with the defendant should be held only at a contact center and supervised by a social worker.
19. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that on the day the report was issued, she was certified as a social worker for legal procedures. She held joint meetings with children C, D, and F.  The witness confirmed that there was a possibility that the complainant told the children what to say about the defendant.  She noted that each of the children said things in their own way, told different stories and added different information.  The children's reactions also emphasized the authenticity of their words (crying, trembling of the body, of the chin, contractions of the body).
20. The witness was asked about an incident she heard from the mouth of the girl D. – an incident that D. did not tell the children's investigator. The witness replied that she had written down what she had been told in her meeting with D.  The witness was impressed by the authenticity of the children's words, which they spoke without being guided by others.  The witness emphasized that the purpose of her meetings with the children was not to interrogate them, but to examine the most appropriate manner for the children's encounter with the defendant.  The complainant objected to meetings with the defendant outside the contact center.  The witness noted that after she submitted the report, she went on maternity leave.  She does not know what happened in the meetings with the defendant afterwards.  Today she knows that the meetings between the defendant and girl D. have stopped, and that the meetings between the defendant and child F were very good.  Prior to the report, she received reports from the children's educational frameworks.  They did not reveal specific things, but it did emerge that there was a trend of "keeping secrets."

Testimony of Mr. Yitzhak Maoz:

21. In his main interrogation, the witness stated that he had been serving as a social worker for legal proceedings for more than 30 years. He received the treatment of the defendant's family after Ms. Maeini-Guy went on maternity leave.  As part of his position, he was responsible for executing the court's decision regarding the relationship between the defendant and the children.  The witness saw from the outset that the two older daughters (A and B) refused to go to the contact center and refused to have any contact with the defendant.  The three little children agreed to come to the contact center.  The witness noted that every few months he had drawn up an opinion about the relationship between the defendant and the children, and that the information to which he was exposed was "not simple," as he put it.  Today, the defendant's relationship is only with son V.  The defendant terminated contact with the children on his own initiative, due to a dispute with the director of the contact center.  The defendant became angry and refrained from coming to the contact center for a year and a half, after he was not allowed to attend his son's Bar Mitzvah, G.  Later, the defendant returned to the contact center, and met only with the child V., since he was the only one who agreed to meet with him.  The witness stated that he tried to persuade children C and D, but they refused to meet with the defendant.  The meetings between the defendant and V. have been taking place to this day, and for more than a year.
22. Through the witness, reports were submitted that he conducted as part of his role as a social worker for legal procedures. The witness noted that he had conversations with the defendant's children – A and B – and they told him about pain and anger on the part of the accused; G. came to the meetings in a very difficult mental state, and refused to speak.  Children D. and V. shared about events they remembered.  The witness noted that in addition to the children's statements, the reports relied on reports he received from Ms. Anat Freiman, who conducted family therapeutic meetings for the complainant and the children.  The reports painted a picture of a difficult relationship, which included physical violence on the part of the accused, humiliation, shouting, and harsh treatment.  According to the witness, the children still suffer from a severe mental state, especially child C.  The reports he received from Ms. Freiman indicate a difficult relationship between the parents.  The children described Shabbat meals in which the defendant forbade them to eat before returning from the synagogue, a long Kabbalat Shabbat seder, a harsh atmosphere, fear and violence.  said that the defendant had not worked for many years, and had conducted legal proceedings against various parties, forcing her to print letters for him until the wee hours of the night.
23. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know the defendant's family before November 15. The witness noted that he had undergone a three-year training course in the treatment of children, including children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.  In his estimation, G. suffers from PTSD, since G.'s symptoms are very similar to what the witness knows from his experience and studies in the field.  He himself met with G. several times.  To this day, G. is unable to talk to adults, locking the doors for fear that his father will arrive.  The witness estimated that G. was still afraid of his father, and had not yet received appropriate treatment.
24. The witness confirmed that the meetings between the defendant and child F. were good, until the idea arose to allow meetings outside the contact center as well. The witness noted that the defendant was not willing to begin parental guidance, and therefore, inter alia, the subject of meetings with V. outside the contact center was delayed.

Testimony of the complainant:

25. The complainant stated in her main interrogation that she had been a kindergarten teacher by profession for 24 years. She met the defendant in 1995 through a match.  At the defendant's initiative, and after he consulted with a rabbi, she changed her name to the Ministry of the Interior.  The wedding took place at the time and place that the defendant had determined.  She also changed her clothing to suit the defendant.  During the first two years of the marriage, they lived in Ma'alot opposite the defendant's mother, and then moved to an apartment they had purchased in Karmiel.

The events that preceded the filing of the complaint with the police:

26. At the beginning of November 2015, the complainant left the house. A year later, they divorced.  In the years leading up to the date of filing the complaint with the police, the situation at home worsened, but she told herself that it was "not too bad" if only she was suffering, and if "it would reach the children," she would stop.  In June 2015, the complainant asked to speak with the defendant "in a quiet place."  The complainant told the defendant that she wanted to divorce him, because he was abusing her and the children, belittling them, and the children could no longer tolerate his behavior.  The defendant listened, and said that he was ruling about the children.  Following the conversation, the complainant went to sleep in another room in the house, and stopped going to the mikveh.  The defendant consulted with a rabbi on his behalf.  The complainant went to the rabbi in Safed, and told him about the atmosphere at home, about the children and about the "suffocation incident."  The rabbi asked her to send the defendant to him, but the defendant refused to come.  The rabbi told her that in his opinion, the complainant should go to the police.  That same month, daughters A and B told her that if she didn't do something, they would leave the house.
27. One day, at her parents' home, the complainant inquired about opening a divorce file with the rabbinate. Her father suggested that she turn to "Naamat".  The complainant met with the principal there, told her about the events she had previously told the rabbi in Safed.  On the recommendation of the principal, the complainant came to Na'amat again, a few days later, and met with an attorney, to whom she told about those events.  The lawyer gave her the phone number of Attorney Guy Ophir, and recommended that she come to him, accompanied by a family member, for a consultation meeting.  The next day, the complainant and her mother met with Attorney Ophir.  At the meeting, Attorney Ofir asked her if she had experienced violence from the defendant, and she answered in the negative.  She told him about the atmosphere in the house, and he replied that it was violence.  Attorney Ofir gave her the phone number of an "economic investigator," who asked her to obtain a photocopy of the defendant's ID card.  About a week before November 1, 2015, her mother, on the advice of Attorney Ophir, urged her to come to the municipality's welfare department.  The complainant met Ms. Stacy Schwarzglass there.  At the end of the meeting, Ms. Schwartzglass informed her that she was at high risk and that she should contact the police immediately.
28. At the police station, she and her mother entered an interrogation room with an interrogator named Avi. After she told him about the general atmosphere in the house, about the "suffocation incident" and about another incident, the interrogator informed her that he wanted to take a statement from her, and asked her mother to leave the room.  The interrogator asked her not to mention the children, and to focus on the two incidents she had previously recounted, which the complainant did.  At the end of the interrogation, the interrogator told her that the defendant would be arrested and that she would not return home.  She sent the third son to her sister.  Two hours later, the interrogator Avi informed her that the defendant had been arrested.  The next day, the interrogator informed her that the defendant had been released from detention, and recommended that she apply for a protection order.  The complainant arrived at the court in the Krayot, and a hearing on her request for a protection order was scheduled the next day, in the presence of both parties.  Later in the day, the complainant and her mother met with Attorney Ophir, who asked another attorney to appear in his place for the hearing.  The same lawyer heard from the complainant what happened at the police, and instructed the complainant to go to the police again, and ask to be interrogated by another investigator.  The complainant did so, and told the other interrogator about the harm to the children.

The atmosphere at home:

29. The complainant stated that during the years of her marriage to the defendant, she obeyed his every wish: the defendant chose the house in which they would live, who and when to visit, when they would go to the hospital for the birth of their eldest daughter, when she would be discharged from the hospital, whether to breastfeed the daughter or not. After the birth of son G., the defendant determined, despite the complainant's objections, that G.'s circumcision would be performed separately between women and men.  At the same time, he also ruled that the eldest daughter would transfer to a religious framework.  The defendant stopped working and filed a lawsuit against his employer.  After he was in a car accident, he sat at home and used to send the complainant to buy medication for him.  In those days, the defendant demanded that the girls not wear pants, and that they wear tank tops under their clothes.  The defendant slept for long hours, and did not assist in caring for the children.  The complainant felt that she was subjected to "religious terrorism" and said that she was not interested in more than three children.  The defendant demanded that the complainant stop taking birth control pills, and she complied with his demand.
30. As the years passed, the atmosphere in the house became more difficult, the words that were thrown in the house, the attitude and behavior of the defendant. He demanded that his will be done immediately, and exactly as he wanted.  Outwardly, everyone loved him and saw him as sacred.  In practice, she used to sleep for half a day, and when he got up, he would pray for ten hours, and no one dared to make any noise in the house.  When the defendant returned home, if the door hadn't been opened for him right away, he would have screamed.  In the opposite situation, the complainant and the children would stay outside the house for many minutes, until the defendant would open the door for them.  The complainant and the children lived in fear of the accused.  When the complainant went to her parents' house with the children, the defendant used to "interrogate" the children when they returned home – who they were sitting with and what they had done.  When the girls grew up, they used to tell the complainant, "I wish Dad would die."  When they visited the complainant's parents for Shabbat meals, the whole family was asked to behave in accordance with the defendant's rules in order to please him.  The defendant would force the children to stay around the table, even though the other children would get up.  The complainant always defended the defendant and no one knew about what was happening in her house.
31. At home, the ceremonies around the Shabbat table would sometimes last three hours. The defendant would read and dwell on every case.  The girls sometimes needed to go to the bathroom, and asked for permission to get up.  On one occasion, the defendant said to Girl B, "I understand that it's intentional that you go to the bathroom, you run away.  If you ask for the bathroom again, I won't let you go to the bathroom."  As far as the complainant was concerned, these cases were more of a nightmare than any throwing a bottle or a knife.
32. The quarrels between the couple were about the children. In the year preceding the divorce, the defendant lost a lawsuit against Rafael.  The defendant would force A.'s daughter to type documents for him, until late at night, even on the days when A. went to school the next day.  The defendant used to tell the children that "Mom is nothing at home" and that she "can't help you with anything."

"Taking the phones of girls A and B":

33. During Passover, in 2015, the girl A. was left alone in the house with the defendant. When the complainant returned home with the other children, she saw A. pale.  The defendant told her that A. was a "promiscuous girl," because of the pictures she had on her phone and the way she dressed.  The defendant cursed A., and told her that he would prefer her to commit suicide.  He took her and B.'s cell phone, and didn't give them back.  The defendant also told girls A and B that the next day they would stay at home and not go to school.  The complainant's mother heard about the incident from the defendant.  The next day (Friday), when she returned from work, she didn't see anyone at home.  The door to the girls' room was closed.  She was unable to enter their room, because the defendant was leaning against the door, while he was still in the room.  She managed to move the door a little and saw the girls sitting on the bed.  She screamed, but the defendant wouldn't let her into the girls' room.

"Threats"

34. The complainant stated that the defendant used to curse, curse and threaten. Thus, over the past year, before the complainant left the house, the defendant used to tell her: "I will murder you"; "I'll kill you"; "Give me just five minutes and I'll kill you."  He once said to Girl B, "If you speak, all your teeth will be out and you will be able to count them."  In the year preceding her departure from home, the complainant and the children would refrain from returning home as much as possible.  They spent most of the day at the complainant's parents' house, and returned only in the evening.  On Saturdays and holidays, they stayed at home most of the day, and then there was an atmosphere of terror in the house.  The defendant would prolong the religious ceremonies at home.  He used to rummage through the children's cupboards, take out books they had brought from the ulpana and tear them up.

"Child C":

35. According to the complainant's testimony, most of the physical violence was directed at child C. When the child G. was in the first grade, his teacher called the complainant and told her that G. was suspended from school, after he tied one child to a chair.  When the complainant went to a meeting at the school, the defendant interrogated G. in detail, and G. even drew up a drawing, at the defendant's request.  At some point, complaints from the school stopped coming, and the complainant thought that "things worked out."  When G. was in the third grade, his teacher called, saying that G. was suspended from school after throwing a chair at another child in the class.  The complainant spoke with the principal of the school, who told her that she had instructed G.'s teaching staff not to report unusual events, because she felt from G.'s conduct that there was "something wrong" at home.  Today, the complainant understands that G. used to "snatch" from the defendant frequently, and for no justifiable reason.

"The Bicycle Event":

36. When G. graduated from the sixth grade, he received a "blacker than black" certificate, and no institution agreed to accept him for a follow-up yeshiva. The complainant came up with an idea, to which the defendant agreed, that G. would stay in the sixth grade for another year, improve his grades, and thus be able to enroll in middle school.  The complainant made an appointment with the school principal.  She remembered that it was a Sunday of the week.  When she returned from the meeting, she saw the boy V. sitting in the living room.  The defendant told her that G. was irresponsible – he had gone with the boy V, and lost him on the way.  The complainant did not see G., and therefore assumed that he had gone out to look for V.  After a while, the defendant walked towards the shower and told G. to get out.  The complainant asked G. if the defendant had beaten him, and told the defendant that if she heard that the defendant had hit G., she would go to the police.  opened the shower door and cried (unlike his usual practice).  The complainant took G. and V. and the three of them left the house.  G. told her that the defendant had kicked him and hit him.  The complainant left the children with her parents, went to another meeting about G.'s educational institution, and then went back to pick up V. and G. from her parents' home.  G. told her at this point that "if my father is home, I won't go home."  This incident took place on the Friday before the new school year began.

"Suffocation":

37. The complainant stated that the relationship between her and the defendant was minimal and he refused to seek couples therapy. On the day of the beginning of the school year, the two older daughters went to sleep with friends and the complainant took the opportunity to sleep comfortably in their bed.  The defendant then approached her and said that he agreed to go to couples therapy but asked that the complainant go to the mikveh first, to which she refused.  The complainant went to sleep in the girls' room.  At one point, she suddenly felt suffocated.  She moved her head slowly, and felt the daughter's black dog doll resting on top of her.  She felt the touch of a hand with a wool glove, but couldn't see anything.  She heard the defendant address her by name and ask her, "Why are you doing this to me?"  She asked him to stop, and then it was all over.  The defendant left the room, the complainant got up and saw a blanket taken from the bedroom in the room.  When she left the room, she noticed that her cell phone was gone, and the wireless phone in the house was also not found.  The defendant asked her if she wanted a pill or a cup of tea, went and made tea for both of them, and then sat down in the living room.  The complainant sat down to read Psalms, and went to check on how the young children were doing.  asked her if she was okay, and told her that he had seen the defendant walk with a plate of schnitzels, and said that the complainant would not survive.  The complainant did not understand the connection between the two things, and later went to sleep in the room with the small children.  The mobile phone she never saw again, and she bought a new one.  The strangulation incident took place on September 1, 2015, and she first told Rabbi Shmuel of Safed, then to Attorney Guy Ofir and her mother that day, then she told Stacey and then to the police.  She did not complain immediately because the welfare lawyer accused her of being an accomplice.

"The Knife Throw":

38. In the last five months at home, the atmosphere was a "nightmare" and every statement was met with insults. In one case, around the Shabbat table, the defendant said something to one of the children, took a knife and threw it at the complainant, but the knife hit her son W., who was sitting next to her.

"Throwing the Fish Plate":

39. In another incident, the defendant said something to one of the children and threw the fish plate. The plate shattered on the floor.  The complainant remembers the noise of the plate breaking.  The plate didn't hurt the complainant, it just soiled her.  She remembers that afterwards there was complete silence in the house.

"Throwing the device to hang clothes":

40. At some point during the three years preceding the complainant's departure from the house, the defendant threw the laundry dryer at the complainant. The device hit the complainant's abdomen, but she does not remember if she suffered any signs of injury.  The complainant noted that even then she did not think it was violence.  The severe violence at home was not physical violence, but the "other" violence, the atmosphere of fear in which they lived.  Another incident she remembers, during the period when she was pregnant with daughter D. - the defendant threw a toy at her that was lying on the floor.  The game hurt her stomach.

"The Documents":

41. On Friday, two days after she first met with attorney Guy Ophir, and two days before she filed a complaint with the police, near the middle of the night, the defendant entered the room where the complainant was sleeping, and screamed at her, "You touched my documents, I can kill you." These were irrational screams in the middle of the night, different from all the screams the family had experienced all their lives.  As a result, children D. and V. woke up, pouring their water on the clothes.

"The violence against the complainant when she refused to have sexual relations":

42. The complainant stated that when it came to having marital relations with the defendant, she was an object in every way. The defendant determined when and how.  There were nights when the complainant begged the defendant that she could not have sex, because the next day she got up to work.  At first, she would go to sleep in the living room, and in such cases, the next morning she would find all her clothes thrown on the floor in the bedroom.  Later, the defendant would throw her clothes in the living room, and the children would get up in the morning and see her discarded clothes.  Since then, the complainant has stopped leaving the bedroom, insisting on her refusal to have marital relations with the defendant.  The defendant would quote verses from the Torah, and would also kick her in the back, throw pillows at her and push her – but she would refuse and would not leave the bedroom.
43. After leaving the house, the complainant moved in with her five children to live with her parents. Her mother objected to the possibility that the complainant would be transferred to a home for battered women.  On April 19, 2017, the complainant received the house by virtue of the divorce agreement.  She went with her mother and her lawyer to the house, in order to get personal belongings out of it.  When she entered the house, her eyes darkened from the destruction left behind by the defendant.  Only then did the complainant realize, according to her, where she lived.  When she saw the condition of the house, and in light of the objections of daughters A and B, the complainant did not return to live in that house.  When the complainant purchased a new house, daughter A. did not want to live with her, and continued to live in the complainant's parents' home.  claimed to the complainant that for 18 years she had not served as her mother.  Girl B also blamed the complainant and claimed that she had suppressed everything.

"Family Treatments":

44. Daughters A and B refused to come to the family treatments. The complainant came to the therapeutic sessions with children C, D, and F.  At first, G. was unwilling to speak, and it took a while for the therapist Anat to get him to say something.  In one of the sessions, the complainant and the caregiver Anat met alone.  Anat told her that the children had told very difficult things, and the complainant sat frozen.  The children's words brought her back to the cases and situations she thought they hadn't experienced.  The complainant noted that she learned to get closer to her children, learned to hug them.  She learns what the children have experienced from what she is going through with them.  The five children experienced trauma.  And she dedicates herself and gives up on herself, just to "save them."

"The incident with the nephew, minor Y":

45. One day, the complainant asked her sister to send her son Y. to take care of the children in the afternoon. The complainant told the defendant that Y. was guarding the girls.  When the complainant returned home in the evening, the defendant appeared angry, and told her that Y. had entered D.'s room and touched daughter A.  The complainant did not speak to A. and did not understand that something extreme had happened there.  Years later, after the complainant had already separated from the defendant, Y. told her that he had entered the room to arrange his shirt (which he was wearing upside down).  The defendant accused him of wanting to touch daughter A., kicked him and shamed him.

Verbal violence against children:

46. The defendant was verbally violent towards the children, and used harsh words: "Stupid, retarded, I wish I would die." He told A.: "As far as I'm concerned, you'll commit suicide," "I took care of you, you deserve it."  was a "kaffa boy," and every time he came home with a letter from school, the girls would beg the complainant not to reveal it to the defendant.  As far as G. was concerned, the beatings were not terrible, and the worst of all was the defendant's threat, that on Friday all the family members would go to the complainant's mother's house, and G. would be left alone with the defendant.  During the family therapy, G. said that he wanted to bring the most frightening types of dogs to the new home so that they would be protected from the accused.  To this day, G. locks his room in the new house if the complainant is not at home.

"Threats against B":

47. At the Shabbat table, the defendant told B. that if she said "that," she would count her teeth with her hands.
48. In her cross-examination, the complainant denied that the defendant had caused a "breakdown" in the complainant's family. There were arguments (and she was the one who defended the defendant, at the time), but this did not cause a dispute or a breakup.  The defendant forbade the introduction of television into the house.  The children only watched television with the complainant's parents.  One night, the defendant turned off the television, which was a fait accompli.
49. The defendant filed a lawsuit against his employer [Rafael]. At first, he hired the services of a lawyer, but later A. became his typist.  He used to say that he knew when A. should go to bed, and also responded with disdain to the complainant's claim that there were other children in the room who needed to sleep.
50. In June, before the complainant left the house, she had a conversation with the defendant, with the aim of ending the relationship with him "in a beautiful way". She told the defendant that she could no longer tolerate what he was doing to the children.  Even before the conversation, the complainant raised several times her claims regarding the defendant's treatment of the children.  The complainant confirmed that in the same conversation with the defendant in June, she did not talk about his violence.  Until then, she didn't realize that she was living in a violent home.  As far as the complainant is concerned, the difficult emotional experience she experienced with the defendant is much more difficult than the beatings and physical violence.  Today she sees things differently.
51. The complainant confirmed that the defendant accused her of cheating on him, with one of the fathers of a child in the kindergarten where she worked at the time. The defendant woke her up once in the middle of the night, and performed a ceremony that included the recitation of verses and the complainant's water of bitter water[1].
52. The complainant reiterated that the older daughters, A. and B., urged her to "take action," without specifying what she should do. The conversation with the girls on the day the defendant took their mobile phones from them.  The complainant told them that she had gone to sleep in another room, and the girls told her that was not enough.  Later, the complainant sought to correct her statement – the incident of the defendant taking the phones – took place before the Passover holiday.  The conversation with the girls took place a few months later, around October 2015.  The complainant said that since the phones were taken, the atmosphere in the house had become unbearable.  After the girls urged her to "take action," she asked for a divorce from the defendant.  As a result, it did not occur to her to file a complaint with the police.  The complainant first contacted the rabbi, and then to an attorney on behalf of Naamat, who referred her to Attorney Guy Ophir, who sent her to an "economic investigator."  Only then did the idea arise to file a complaint with the police.
53. The complainant confirmed that she had told the police that she was filing a complaint following her meeting with the lawyer. She herself does not know who this "economic researcher" is, and she has never met him.  It is her mother who swims with him.  Only after her meeting with social worker Stacey did the complainant contact the police.  In her second interrogation with the police, the complainant was asked whether the defendant had assaulted the children, and she only told about the beatings that G. had received.  She did not mention the violence towards the other children, as it repressed everything they experienced.  The violence against G. was very frequent.  She claims that she does not know what is described in the indictment, and she assumes that it also relies on the children's testimony.  To this day, she doesn't know what the children said in the testimonies that were taken from them.
54. The complainant confirmed that when she received her statement of 2 November 2015, she told of the "bicycle incident" in which the defendant kicked and slapped G. She heard it from G., but she herself did not see the incident.  The bicycle incident was traumatic for her.  She did not tell the police about any other violent incidents because she was not asked.  If they had asked, she would have told me.
55. When it comes to the family treatments with the caregiver Anat - the children didn't tell everything there. It's not a situation like an interrogation.  The children brought content on their own, not the caregiver.  With the caregiver Anat, it wasn't an interrogation of the children, so the children didn't tell everything.  In parallel to the family treatments, she herself underwent personal treatments, without the presence of the children.  The complainant confirmed that during her interrogation on September 7, 2016, she also referred to events she heard about during the family treatments.  The complainant denied that during that interrogation she was in possession of a "message sheet" that she had prepared.  According to her, this is a page she received during her personal treatment, regarding circles of control and power.
56. With regard to the "wine bottle incident" (section 3.1 of the indictment), the complainant confirmed that the remarks were made during Friday evening, in the presence of her children. The defendant did not pick up the bottle of wine, did not wave it, and as far as she was concerned, it was not a dramatic event.  The two sentences described in section 3.1 of the indictment were said on different occasions and are not related to each other.  She remembers the defendant saying a threatening sentence referring to a bottle of wine.  She also remembers the defendant telling her, and more than once, "I'll strangle you, it's going to take me exactly 5 minutes."  She later confirmed that she heard the defendant threatening to throw a bottle of wine at her with her own ears.  This was said to her one Saturday evening, about three months before she left home.
57. Regarding the "fish plate" (section 3.5 of the indictment), the complainant noted that it took place on Friday evening. The plate was thrown at the complainant, broke on the floor and soiled her clothes, but the plate did not hit her.  The plate passed in the area of the complainant's shoulder line.  The complainant explained that it was an attempt to harm her.  When asked why she did not correct the matter during her police interrogation, she noted that the statement was taken from her shortly after the events.  As far as she was concerned, she experienced the incident as if the defendant had broken the plate on her.
58. Regarding the "laundry facility incident" (section 3.4 of the indictment), the complainant confirmed that there were no signs of injury left on her body. According to her, the defendant pushed the device at her.  This is not a matter of lifting the device and throwing it in its direction.  The defendant pushed the device in her direction, by force and with the intention of harming her.  The complainant noted that she did not tell about the incident on her own initiative, but was asked about it during her police interrogation.
59. As to the bicycle incident" (section 4.6 of the indictment), the complainant confirmed that it came up during the joint treatments. The complainant knew about the incident and told the police about it.  The same applies to the incident of throwing the knife (paragraph 3.5 of the indictment).  The complainant explained that she had only told about this in her interrogation on September 7, 2016, because she had been asked about it.
60. The complainant repeatedly described the "bicycle incident", and confirmed that while G. was in the bathroom, she shouted at the defendant that if he hit G., she would call the police. The complainant ruled out the possibility that it was only because of these things that G. told her that the defendant had beaten him.  The complainant explained that G. was telling the truth, and that later that day he told her that he would not return home if the defendant was there.
61. Regarding other incidents of violence against G., the complainant stated that on Friday evening, on a date she does not remember, she saw the defendant beating G. after crumbs fell on the floor.
62. The complainant confirmed that she had never seen the defendant beat the girls – A, B or D. The complainant stated that she saw the defendant beating his son V.  This is despite the fact that she stated in her interrogation on 7 September 2016 that she did not know of any violence against him, and only after the treatments did she learn of it.  The complainant was asked to explain the discrepancy between her testimony and what she said during her interrogation with the police, and stated that the police referred to a specific incident, and not to a general allegation of physical violence by the defendant against W.  She remembers seeing the defendant beat W., after W. made a hole in the wall.  She can't explain why she didn't mention it during her police interrogations.
63. The complainant further replied that she had heard threats against daughters A and B, but did not mention this during her police interrogations. The complainant explained that she had answered what she had been asked.  The girls did not share with her what they said in their interrogations with the police.
64. The complainant denied that she had ever beaten any of her children. This is despite the fact that D.'s claim was brought before her during her interrogation before a child investigator, according to which the complainant beat her and her brother.
65. As for the 'suffocation incident,' the complainant stated that she did not know which of the children heard the exchange. The complainant repeatedly described the course of events.  The complainant insisted that she did not struggle, did not shout, did not scratch the defendant, and that there were no signs of injury left on her body.  The complainant noted that after she got out of bed, she did not see anyone in the room.  She and the defendant had correspondence about the incident, by telephone.  However, the complainant has since changed a mobile phone, and the correspondence has not remained with her.
66. The complainant was confronted with G.'s version of the incident, according to which the defendant tried to strangle the complainant with a purple teddy bear. The complainant insisted that she did not tell G. about the incident, or to anyone else.  Her mother first heard about it when they met with attorney Guy Ophir.  The complainant reiterated that after the incident she entered G.'s room, he was awake and asked her if everything was okay, and told her that he had seen the defendant pass by with a tray of schnitzels and say that the complainant would not survive.
67. The complainant described the defendant as a "very scary father." During his stay at home, he terrorized.  They were afraid to talk at home.  They had to please him all the time.  The violence on the part of the defendant began after the birth of their eldest daughter, A. (1998), and it intensified over the years.  In 2011, the three older children had already experienced violence on the part of the accused.  The complainant was presented with a "root work" prepared by A., which includes descriptions different from those given by the complainant – regarding the circumstances of her birth, the choice of her name, and more.  The complainant denied the correctness of some of the statements, and denied the fact that she wrote the words.  The complainant was presented with a booklet containing the children's greetings for the 14th wedding anniversary of the defendant and the complainant.  The complainant stated that she did not remember this booklet, and that she had never seen it.  She expressed doubt that the words were indeed written by the children, since it also included a blessing that was supposedly written by daughter D., who was too young at the time.

Testimony of daughter B:

68. stated, in her main interrogation, that she felt anger toward the defendant. During her interrogations with the police, she spoke about the violence that everyone experienced at home over the years, at the hands of the defendant.  It was mainly about verbal violence, threats and intimidation.  Sometimes there was also physical violence.  There was an atmosphere of terror at home, there is one person who decides and everyone knows it, and if it is undermined, it has consequences: threats that sometimes come true.  The threats included statements such as: "If you don't, you'll get a slap you've never had in your life."  There were also threats of hitting the head against the wall.  There were also threats that came true – mainly slapping.  There was real physical violence against her brother, G.
69. noted that over the years she served as a kind of "policeman" for the defendant, making sure that everyone did as he said (even though she did not agree with the laws set by the defendant). After they left the house, she looked for someone to "terrorize" as she was used to at home.  She turned it towards her body, and she fell ill with anorexia.  Today, thanks to the treatments she has undergone, her condition is better.
70. There were also better times at home, of laughter. But any state of laughter can turn into a state of anger in an instant, because of improper behavior.  There was a constant state of deterioration.  The stronger the defendant became in religion, the more the violence increased.  Religion was another tool for imposing violence in the home, and the feeling of fear was constant: prohibitions to behave in a certain way, to wear certain clothes, or to speak in any way.  There were also inappropriate remarks towards her mother, the complainant.  There were threats against everyone.  In the last few months, before they left the house, the defendant's language towards the complainant was harsher.  He called her a "prostitute" at Shabbat dinner, next to all the children.
71. At some point in 2014, B. suffered from a toothache, and the defendant knew that. She was holding a kind of cutlery in her hand and said something that the defendant did not see at the scene.  The defendant told her that if she continued to talk like this, he would hit her in the mouth, and all her teeth would hurt, not just one.  In another incident, about three years before her interrogation by the police (i.e., in 2012), during a Friday dinner, B. held a plastic bottle of drink and pressed her chin to it.  The defendant ordered her to stop, B. replied that it was just her chin, and in response the defendant slapped her.
72. Her brother, G., was the defendant's main victim. In addition to verbal violence, G. was frequently beaten by the defendant: "Slapping, pushing and whatever came, as if without mercy."  If the other children the defendant had slapped him, he would have "mowed down with blows."  The defendant used to justify his behavior and say that he wanted G.'s well-being.  It was not a blow of losing his temper, but the defendant believed that this was the way to educate him.
73. As an example of violence against G., the witness stated that after a Shabbat or holiday meal, everyone dispersed. The defendant and G. were in the kitchen, while B. was sitting in the living room.  was holding a bullet in his hand, the defendant wanted to see what G. was holding in his hand, and G. refused.  In response, the defendant slapped G., repeatedly until he finally forcibly removed the bullet from the defendant's hand.  She does not remember how many times the defendant slapped G. in that incident.
74. said that the family time focused on events around the Shabbat or holiday table. Another incident she remembers, also around the Shabbat table, when she was talking to her sister, saw G. walking towards the shower room, and the defendant running after him.  In retrospect, she understood that G. had made a face, or imitated the defendant in a way that he did not like.  Everyone at the table heard the punches that the defendant hit G.  The defendant also said to him: "You grew up, huh? I'll teach you.  I'll show you what it is.  I'll show you who the man in the house is."  These were hard hits.  She remembered that she shuddered when she heard them.  The incident occurred when B. was in middle school, and G. was in elementary school.  During her testimony, B. even demonstrated, by means of a strong pat on the thigh, how the blows sounded.
75. remembers another incident, in which she sat with G. at the kitchen table. The defendant returned from work, G. spoke improperly, and the defendant slapped him.  B. distorted her face because of this, and the defendant threatened her that if she didn't stop with that face, she would also get a slap.
76. noted that G. did not respond to the violence against him. He would shut himself in, and like any victim, he tried to be nice to the accused.  That was the norm at home.  She did not see G. crying, even after he was beaten by the defendant.  She doesn't remember seeing physical violence against her sister D.  There was verbal violence against her.
77. Towards her sister, A., there was violence of the same kind that she herself experienced: threats and beatings "as needed." In addition, A. was the defendant's "typist", who used to file a lot of lawsuits.  would sit in their room for long nights, typing "endlessly" – she did this during the summer vacation, the night before school, and devoted hours and hours to the matter.
78. stated that she finds it difficult to describe life with the defendant as "life." She was in constant fear of him, an atmosphere of regime and norms, from which anyone who deviated from them was punished.  B. tried to supervise the others to do according to the defendant's wishes, in order not to experience the consequences of doing something against his will.
79. stated that she did not recall seeing physical violence towards the complainant, but there were threats, and there were throwing objects. She remembers an incident of throwing a plate of fish in the direction of the complainant.  The plate hit the wall, not the complainant.  In the last few months before leaving the house, there were very harsh threats against the complainant.  At least twice, the defendant told her that he would kill her.  She heard him tell her that he could "cum" her in two minutes.
80. At one of the holiday meals, before they left home, the issue of divorce came up on the agenda. The defendant and the complainant spoke to each other.  The defendant called the complainant a "prostitute" and told the children that the complainant did not go to the mikveh, and that he could take her out of the house "without anything, only with her underwear."
81. One day, B. came home from school, and in the afternoon she used to eat with the defendant. She tried to open a box of candy and couldn't.  The defendant told her that they would eat lunch first and then open the box.  The defendant did not like B.'s reaction, which he interpreted as disrespect for him, and suddenly slapped and kicked her.
82. Around the Passover holiday, before they left the house, the defendant found that daughter A. was surfing on the phone and watching content that did not fit his religious approach. As a result, he confiscated A and B's phones.  He promised to give them "kosher" devices instead, but the promise was not kept, and the phones were never returned.
83. During her cross-examination, B. noted that the events are etched in her memory. They left home when she was in the beginning of the 10th grade, at the age of 15.  She remembers that day traumatically.  It was very sudden.  That same day, she and A. returned from school to her grandmother's house, and she told them that they would stay overnight with her.  Gradually, they realized that they weren't going home.  In retrospect, she realized that her mother had filed a complaint with the police.  In real time, I don't know if she was told about it.
84. had not heard of the suffocation incident firsthand. Only in retrospect did her grandmother tell her about it, a few weeks before they left home.  Ever since she heard about it, she had trouble falling asleep, for fear that something would happen.  She heard from her grandmother that the defendant tried to kill the complainant.  B. was confronted with her grandmother's testimony that she had heard about the strangulation incident only on the day they left the house.  According to B., her grandmother may not remember exactly.  She remembers that after hearing about it from her grandmother, she also told her sister, A., about the incident, who was not so excited about it.
85. confirmed that she and A. did not participate in the joint family treatments. She herself chose to leave everything behind, so she didn't come to the therapy sessions.  When she was first interrogated by the police, it was for sure before the treatment began.  At home, they did not talk about what came up in therapy, although it is possible that they related to a specific matter, such as the impact of some event on her brother.  In any case, she did not focus on it.  B. was involved and interested in what was happening in the legal proceedings regarding the divorce, but not about what was happening in the police investigations.
86. further explained that after each of her interrogations with the police, she was traumatized and did not want to talk to anyone about the contents of the investigation. She also kept the events at home to herself, and did not share her friends.  She does not remember that at the end of the interrogation she was told not to talk to anyone, but she herself did not discuss it with anyone.  There are also no secrets or versions to coordinate here – everyone has experienced the same reality.  In her interrogation, she spoke about events in which the complainant was present, but she pushed it back.  In her cross-examination, B. confirmed that at home they had talked about events they had experienced – these events were in fact their lives.  But none of them spoke about the police investigation, what they said there and what they were asked.  I confirm that they talked about the events they experienced at home but did not talk about the interrogation and what they were asked.  Before the interrogation, no one spoke to her or "prepared her."  She was only told to be true to her truth.
87. also said that after the complainant testified in court, she asked her in the evening if she remembered anything about rooting work. B. refused to talk to her about it.  The complainant did not tell her what she was asked and what she said in court.  To the defense attorney's question, B. replied that the complainant had not asked her anything about wedding anniversary blessings.
88. Regarding the "document incident", B. noted that she remembered that the defendant was upset because the complainant had touched his documents. In the middle of the night, the defendant entered the room where the complainant slept (with B.'s brother).  It was Friday night, before they left the house.  was in her room at the time, was awake in her bed and heard the defendant.  She does not remember that the defendant told the complainant that he would kill her in that incident, but this is not an extreme statement on the part of the defendant.  She had heard him say similar sentences several times before.  She remembers that the complainant told the defendant that two of the small children had "missed."  B. confirmed that she did not tell about the incident during her police interrogation, and explained that she was in a traumatic state at the time.
89. said that when she lived in the defendant's shadow, he forced her to dress a certain way, did not allow her to see friends or maintain an account on the Facebook app. Friends rarely came to visit her because she was ashamed of what was happening in their house.  Today she feels free – from fear, threats and religious coercion on the part of the accused.
90. confirmed that in the months before they left the house, she told the complainant that she could not continue to live in this way, and that she intended to leave the house. She did not tell the complainant to divorce the defendant, because she never believed it would happen.  She told her mother many times that she was "fed up," that she saw her life as "not right" and that she wanted to "do something," but her mother told her that it was impossible.  B. did not know how to explain why the last time the complainant got up and took action.
91. The incident in which the defendant threatened to hurt her teeth took place about a year before she gave her testimony to the police. Today, she does not remember exactly when the incident occurred.  There was one such incident - she put her chin on the bottle, and the defendant slapped her as a result.  It was during a family meal, but she doesn't remember who was present.  She may have told the complainant about the incident on the day it took place.  This was an event that was "part of their norm."  noted that after the police interrogation, she recalled other incidents that she did not tell about during her interrogation, because "you can't cram an entire life into a short interrogation."  She doesn't remember that during that incident she was told the sentence "You'll count all your teeth," but she remembers that the defendant threatened to punch her, and all her teeth would hurt, or some other sentence in a similar style.
92. was contradicted by A.'s version, according to which the defendant beat B. only when they were little girls. B. insisted on her version, arguing that A. was conveying the matter from her point of view, while B.'s point of view was different.  To B., N/9 was presented (congratulations on the anniversary of the defendant and the complainant).  B. noted that it was A.'s handwriting, and that she did not remember these blessings.  The blessing that ends with the words "Love, Glory" was also written in A.'s handwriting.
93. stated that she did not recall cases in which the complainant beat her, but noted that it "could have been." It is precisely the defendant's actions that are more imprinted in her memory, because they were "part of the norm."  For her, the "straw that broke the camel's back" was a combination of violence and religious coercion.  These two elements intensified simultaneously, as religious coercion increased, so did the violence.

A.'s testimony:

94. In her main interrogation, A. noted that the change in the house began after the birth of her brother, G. The defendant began to get closer to religion, and there were changes in him: there was an atmosphere of tyranny in the house, the defendant was the "king" and set the rules.  Anyone who appealed against them was punished.  The punishments were both verbal and beaten.  In addition, there was a suspicious atmosphere in the house, everything had to be thought about in advance.  The most difficult days were on Saturdays.  Two hours before Shabbat began, the preparations began, with everything going on with shouting and threats.  Afterwards, the defendant went to the synagogue, and always came back last.  He didn't care that there were small children in the house waiting for him to start eating.  When the defendant returned, Shabbat songs began.  Everyone had to "stand still."  Anyone who made the wrong movement, spoke or touched the utensils – would receive a "response" – throwing a glass, cutlery or plate.  One Saturday, the defendant threw a fork that almost hit V., even though he was not aiming at him.  If the complainant intervened in the arguments, the defendant would threaten her with a knife in front of the children that he would murder her, or use worse words.  Such incidents of threats have occurred several times at Shabbat meals.  In addition, the defendant used to read a story that lasted about four hours after Shabbat dinner.  The children had to sit until midnight without moving or talking.  In her eyes, this is abuse.
95. The incident with my nephew Y.: A. was about nine years old at the time. Her parents were not at home, and A. was asked to look after her younger siblings (including D., who was a baby at the time).  Her cousin, Y., came to help her.  At some point, Y. discovered that his shirt was upside down, and he went to the room to tidy it up.  was in the room at the time, since baby D. was crying.  At that point, the defendant entered the house, saw them in the room, became suspicious of them, and kicked Y. out of the house.  The next day, A. did not go to school, because the defendant would interrogate her about where Y. had touched her.  The defendant did not believe A., told her that Rav came to him in a dream and told him that A. was lying.  The defendant slapped her, and this was the first time he had beaten her.
96. The beatings against A. continued until she was about 15 years old. The beatings were mainly slapping.  In the past two years before leaving the house, the defendant beat B. more.  In addition, he threatened her with threats such as: "I'll break all your teeth," "I'll give you a slap like that's never been given to you."  The last incident of physical violence against A. was about a year and a half before they left the house.  She was talking on the wireless phone at home.  She had an argument with the defendant (she doesn't remember what she was talking about), and the defendant took the cordless phone from her, while she was talking on the phone, and threw it at her head.
97. The violence toward B was mainly threats and slapping. It stopped about two years before they left home, because by then A and B were already big.  She finds it difficult to define the violence against G. in words.  He suffered more than anyone else.  When G. did or said something that the defendant did not like, he would throw it to the floor wildly and wildly.  In some cases, he would take G. to a room and beat him, so that the other brothers would not be seen.  would not cry in front of the defendant, said nothing and absorbed everything.  He gathered within himself, and only after the defendant moved away, could G.'s tears be seen.  These are things that A. saw with her own eyes.  Regarding her sister, D., the situation was calmer, but the defendant also beat her if she said something that was not to the defendant's liking or if she dared to answer him.  She remembers an incident in which D. did not say "hello" to the defendant, and the defendant got angry and kicked her.
98. did not see the defendant use physical violence against the complainant, but he would have threatened her with a knife. There were cases in which the complainant went out to events against the defendant's will, and the defendant would lock her out of the house.  He would also threaten to kill her if she didn't make food.  These events took place at home once a week.
99. At the same time that the defendant became stronger in religion, after the birth of her brother G., the defendant stopped working. At the time, he was suing for his job, neighbors and other people.  , who was a high school student at the time, served as his "typist."  Even if she had studies or exams the next day, she would sometimes sit until 3:00 a.m. and do typing work for the defendant.  If she objected, the defendant would punish her, prevent her from meeting with friends, and sometimes beat her.
100. When A. was asked to define her feelings for the defendant, she said that she wished him nothing but the best. As far as she is concerned, he is her father only genetically.  The defendant ruined her childhood, and from that time on, she remembers only the trauma.  She does not testify in order to harm the defendant, but in order to tell what he went through during her childhood.
101. In her cross-examination, A. insisted that during her interrogations with the police, she told the whole truth. However, according to her, it is not possible to describe an entire life in two investigations.  In preparation at the State Attorney's Office, she was told that if she wanted to add anything, it would be possible during her testimony in court.  clarified that she did not exaggerate the description of the events, but rather downplayed.  To this day, she is under the trauma she experienced at home.  When she encounters shouting or raising her voice, the trauma overwhelms her again.  A. confirmed that she did not describe incidents of threats against her mother during her interrogation with the police, and explained that at the time she was interrogated, she was a child who had left her home and tried to forget and lead a routine life.
102. She claimed that she never suffered any signs of injury as a result of the defendant's violence. She doesn't remember if anyone saw the phone throwing incident.  She doesn't remember if it was in the living room or in the room.  The incident took place in 2014, when she was 16 years old.  She remembered that the phone throwing incident was with a home phone, wireless, and not with a mobile phone.  Regarding the issue of throwing cutlery at W., A. insisted that she said in her police interrogation that the defendant threw "a knife or cutlery," and not just a knife.  She does not remember whether the object that was thrown actually hit V., if she remembers that the defendant immediately appeased him.
103. confirmed that during her testimony in court, she gave things that she did not tell the police. Today, as time passes, she encounters situations that remind her of events that have taken place.  She remembers threats against her mother, but she doesn't remember if there were knife threats in the period before she left home.  There were always death threats.  The knife was used for the purpose of threats in a period of 3 to 5 years before they left the house.  A. noted that despite all the events, she showed love for the defendant and tried to make him happy, so that he would love her more.
104. said that since she can remember, the relationship between the defendant and the complainant was not idyllic, and she asked herself why they were not divorcing. A. confirmed that she was the one who prepared the booklet with greetings for her parents on the occasion of their wedding anniversary.  The booklet was prepared in 2011, when she was 14 years old.  She found the blessings in the booklet on websites.  As a child, she wanted her family to be happy and united.  The contents of the blessings are not accurate.  A. was presented with the "root work" that she submitted, and she confirmed that the complainant wrote down most of the details.  Her mother tried to beautify reality, since the work is presented in front of all the children in the class.
105. Regarding the incident with his nephew, Y., A. insisted that the defendant had expelled him from the house. She did not see that the defendant had beaten Y.  She stayed at home when the defendant went down the stairs with her nephew.  She doesn't know what happened when she didn't see them.  She did not hear or understand from another person that the defendant had beaten Y.
106. insisted that the statements she made in her statement of September 8, 2016 regarding the beating of D. by the defendant were correct. The defendant kicked D., but she doesn't remember where it was.  Chances are that D. cried in the same case.  A. was asked to recount a specific incident in which the defendant beat D., and stated that in light of the large number of cases, she had difficulty remembering one particular incident.  She remembers the defendant kicking D., because she didn't say "hello" to him, or because she answered him "wrong."  She remembers for sure that she saw the defendant kicking D. while she was lying on the floor.  Such an event was repeated several times.  A. remembers that she herself was at this event around the 10th grade.
107. noted that there were many conversations between the complainant and B. about what was happening at home. A.'s relationship with the complainant was different.  They didn't have such conversations, and A. would keep things to herself.  She does not remember that the complainant or B. shared with her what they experienced at the hands of the defendant.  A. only knows what she saw and experienced herself.  What she didn't see – she prefers not to know.  The knowledge hurts and bothers her.  This was the case when they lived with the defendant, and it is the same today.  D. also did not tell her about things she experienced from the defendant.  What A. knows are things that she herself has seen.
108. said that she knew about filing the complaint with the police on the day she learned that she and her brother were leaving the house. That same day, she arrived at her grandmother's house, where she heard about it from the complainant's mother.  A. didn't feel the need to ask what exactly had happened.  As far as she's concerned, that's what should have happened.  A. confirmed that she had given an "ultimatum" to the complainant, in order to motivate her to divorce the defendant: A. told the complainant that she preferred to go to national service or live like a lone soldier, and even live on the street – just not to return home.  A. arrived at this position after a long period of abuse, and after the defendant took her mobile phone.  This was not the only time she spoke to the complainant about this.  The complainant got up and "took action" only months after that conversation with A.
109. said that there are many events that she remembers only after being reminded of them. Thus, for example, the defendant concealed clothes for the complainant.  She does not remember the incident in which the defendant shouted at the complainant because she touched his documents.
110. said that during her interrogation with the police, she described an incident that had taken place five years earlier, in which the defendant took G. to a room, so that they would not see how he was beating G. A. peered through the keyhole and saw the defendant kicking G.  The violence against G. continued until they left the house.  The incident she told about during her interrogation with the police took place around 2010, when G. was about 7 years old.  G. never told her that the defendant had beaten him.
111. denied the claim that the complainant had used physical violence against her, and stated that she did not recall such incidents. She remembers that the complainant raised her voice against her.
112. said that she went to the psychologist for a number of family treatments, and then realized that "there is no need for it." This was during the time when she was serving in national service.  A. said that she keeps what she experienced to herself, and does not want to hear what others have experienced.  Once she was asked to participate in B.'s therapy session, and A. agreed, because it was in B.'s best interest and in order to help her.

Testimony of Ms. Carmit Hemo:

113. In her main interrogation, the witness stated that she had been serving as a children's interrogator for eight years. On 16 November 2015, she interrogated children C, D, and F, in their educational frameworks and without their parents' knowledge.  About two weeks later, she interrogated children C and D again.
114. The witness noted that D.'s second interrogation was carried out at the request of the girl, who told the school principal that she was interested in speaking with the investigator again. In her interrogation, D. reported ongoing violence on the part of the defendant towards her and her brother.  The violence included kicking, pushing, slapping, and throwing objects.  reported five incidents of violence on the part of the defendant, as well as four incidents of violence by the complainant against her and her brother.  Of the nine violent incidents, the investigator assessed reliability for four incidents.  D. reported feeling afraid of the defendant and that he used to beat me, saying: "I'm afraid he'll take me, I'm afraid he'll come."  D. gave details about the events, in free text.  She knew how to distinguish between what she saw herself and what she had heard about it from others.  Still, there were not enough criteria for formulating a reliability assessment.  This is the case with regard to the incident of throwing the fish plate and the same with regard to the incident of throwing the washing dispenser.  During her second interrogation, and spontaneously, D. also reported violence towards her on the part of the complainant.  She elaborated on only one incident.  The investigator assessed reliability only regarding this incident, in which D. reported that the complainant had beaten D. by her hand when she woke her up from her sleep and asked her to drink water.
115. The children's investigator had difficulty assessing reliability only about certain parts of an event. Therefore, and since D.'s testimony remained sparse in details about certain events, it was not possible to segment the bicycle incident and assess what D. saw and what he did not.
116. The witness stated that the boy was interrogated when he was five years old. He cooperated according to his age and responded in an adapted manner.  The researcher was impressed by language difficulties.  initially denied the suspicions of violence against him.  He later recounted an incident in which he made a hole in the door frame with a screwdriver, and the defendant hit him with his fingers.  The investigator found it difficult to assess the reliability of this event, since W. did not elaborate.  She was impressed by low motivation for exposure.  When asked if someone else had been hit in the house after he got lost, W. said about the "bicycle incident."  Regarding this incident as well, the investigator had difficulty assessing reliability.  F. did not elaborate on the manner of the injury, nor even with regard to the sequence of events.
117. Regarding the testimony of child G., he did not make any accusations. Although there are many possibilities that explain this type of behavior, the investigator is unable to determine any reliable finding regarding G. and his testimony before her.  was interrogated twice, and was about 12 years old at the time of the interrogation.  He answered only some of the questions, and several times expressed a desire to leave the room and end the conversation.  In both investigations, he was released before the investigation was completed.  Prior to the second interrogation, the investigator spoke with a social worker and the caregiver who treated G. and his family, from whom she understood that G. was in distress and was not willing to talk to anyone and tell what had happened.  As for the lack of blame, the investigator noted that in her experience, about half of the children who are questioned about family abuse are not charged out of feelings of fear, shame, anxiety, guilt or threat.  In 2017, another request was received by the State Attorney's Office to conduct an interrogation of children in G.'s case, but this was not done because G. was already 14 years old.  G. was therefore referred to a youth investigator.
118. The witness also stated that children C and D were interrogated on the same date and in the same educational framework. The two met only at the end of their interrogation, and denied that anyone had told them what to say.  The two had no idea that the children's investigator was coming to interrogate them.
119. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that the assessment of reliability is carried out according to the fulfillment of a number of criteria that arise from the text given by the child. The assessment of whether the child experienced what he described is not done by comparison with external evidence.  The assessment is based on the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs' Guide to the Interrogation of Children.  This is an accepted work tool, and the witness uses it, while adapting what is stated in it to the child being interrogated.
120. The witness further stated that during the collection of the children's interrogations, she had in her possession a form summoning testimony, two statements that the complainant had given to the police (dated 1 November 2015 and 2 November 2015), as well as a report received from the Karmiel Municipality on 12 November 2015. Based on these documents, she built the questions for the children's interrogation.  During the children's interrogations, the witness examined the issue of the contamination of the interrogation: the manner in which the incident was exposed, who the children spoke with, what they were asked and whether they were told what to say during the interrogation.
121. The witness also stated that the summary of the investigation of the girl D. was forwarded to the police for further treatment. Of the events, in two of them D. was the victim, and in the rest of the events she was present as a witness.  According to D.'s report, during the "bicycle incident" the defendant slapped her (as well as G.), and it is reasonable to assume that D. would not have described these feelings if she had not experienced them.  The investigator insisted on assessing the reliability of this incident, despite the fact that the complainant and the children G. and F. did not mention D. in the context of that incident.
122. The investigator noted that during D.'s interrogation, an attempt was made to focus on her, since she slipped into various topics. At the end of the interrogation, the interrogator asked her if she had told anyone else about all the events.  was not asked about each incident if she told anyone else about it.  Regarding the kicking incident, D. later recalled that she had been kicked in the "spitz" of the shoe, and asked to add to this.  D. also said that the defendant also beat her older sisters, but did not mention a specific incident.  The researcher was impressed that this fact indicates D.'s commitment to precision.

Testimony of Ms. Anat Freiman:

123. In her main interrogation, the witness noted that she was a social worker by profession, a couples and family therapist. She received a referral from Ms. Stacy Schwarzglass to treat the complainant and her children who had left the house after experiencing violence.  The two older girls came to only one meeting where they noted that they had experienced violence.  Since then, they have refused to come to the meetings.  Most of the meetings were with the complainant, G., D. and V.  Sometimes there were meetings with the complainant only – mainly parental guidance, and also meetings in order to process the content that arose in the meetings with the children.  Through the witness, social reports that she prepared were submitted [P/59-61].
124. In her cross-examination, the witness noted that she had cared for the family for over two years, at a frequency of once a week. Most of the meetings were attended by the complainant and her three children.  A few meetings took place in the presence of the complainant only, in which the children's fear of the defendant and what he was capable of doing was raised, among other things.  Because of these fears, the complainant used to sleep in the same room with her children, and even accompany them to the shower room.  was very preoccupied with his fears of the defendant.  He made sure that nothing happened to the complainant or his brother, and even prepared "escape strategies" from the defendant in case necessary.
125. The witness documented the therapeutic sessions, which also included content relating to specific incidents, such as an incident in which the defendant threw a plate of fish in the direction of the complainant, along with a knife that almost hit child F. Child C said in the meetings that he heard the defendant get up at night and walk towards the complainant, put gloves on his hands and tried to strangle her.  was not willing to elaborate on the matter.  G. and F. said that the defendant told the complainant, "You will not leave me alive."
126. The witness also noted that during the meetings, the complainant sat silently, and let the children speak. In the meetings that took place with the complainant separately, the complainant told her that she was sure that the children were not aware of all the things they had said.  The witness denied the possibility of contaminating the interrogation and the complainant's desire to incriminate the defendant.  On the contrary, the complainant encouraged the children to meet with the defendant.  In addition, during the joint treatments, the complainant did not mention statements or feelings expressed by other children.  In meetings with the children, they used to talk about content that the children themselves had uploaded.  Some of the content related to the defendant.  Some of the content related to their conduct in their new lives.  The complainant gave the statements of the other children only in individual meetings with the caregiver.
127. The witness ruled out the possibility that during the treatments, an attempt was made to instill thoughts in the children. The goal is to bring the children to normative functioning in their lives.  Among other things, normative functioning vis-à-vis parental authority or the authority of a school teacher.  The witness knows that the children have been interrogated in the past, but does not know when.  From time to time, the witness updated the welfare officer on the progress of the treatment.  There was a case in which the welfare officer entered her room in the middle of a meeting, and informed them that they were supposed to be interrogated.  The witness also stated that she was aware that G. had refused to be interrogated for years.  even refused to meet with the welfare officer alone, and insisted that the witness be present during those meetings.

Testimony of Ms. Nurit Frieda:

128. In her main interrogation, the witness stated that she was a social worker by training, and that she serves as a coordinator of a contact center in Karmiel. The witness noted that the defendant arrived at the contact center in November 2015 and met there with his three children, until August 11, 2016.  The witness confirmed that she had prepared summaries of meetings regarding the family [P/62] as well as two forms regarding reporting meetings at the contact center [P/63-64].
129. In her cross-examination, the witness confirmed that between August 2016 and April 2018, the defendant and the children did not meet at the contact center, because the defendant stopped coming, for his own reasons. The witness reported this to the welfare officer, who instructed her to stop the meetings.  During the month of April 2018, the defendant met once with the three minor children.  The second meeting took place only with child F, as children C and D did not want to go to the contact center.  The witness stated that she was aware that there was a legal proceeding regarding domestic violence.  However, the encounters between the defendant and the children were good.  Child F was related to the defendant – both before the meetings were interrupted and after they were renewed.  The witness informed the welfare officer that children C and D refused to attend further meetings with the defendant.  The welfare officer instructed her that the meetings would continue with W. only.  The meetings have been held since April 2018.  The witness met the complainant only once, and has no acquaintance with her.  The witness got the impression that D. was active in the meetings with the defendant, wanted him to hug her, played and danced.  There was a time when child C had a hard time in the meetings, but the defendant made sure to make the encounter with the children pleasant, and even managed to make him happy.

Testimony of Ms. Noa Weinstein:

130. In her main interrogation, the witness stated that she was a social worker by training, and that she works at the Domestic Violence Prevention Treatment Center in the Karmiel Municipality. The complainant came to the meeting with her the day after the complainant met Stacy Schwarzglass.  At first, a number of 'intake' sessions were held, and later therapy sessions were held.  The witness confirmed that she had made summaries of meetings [P/65], and that correspondence had been conducted between her and the welfare officer [P/66].  The witness also confirmed, in addition, that on November 19, 2015, she sent a letter regarding the complainant, signed by her and by Ms. Schwartzglass [P/67].
131. The witness noted that during the meeting with the complainant, she made an initial risk assessment. The complainant turned to the police, and then to the court with a request for a protection order.  The complainant told the witness that she did not define the defendant's behavior as violent, and that it was the older daughters who "pushed" the complainant to make a decision and separate from the defendant.  From the encounters, it emerged that the defendant used emotional violence, shouted at the children and threatened them.  There was an incident of physical violence in which the defendant tried to strangle the complainant, about a month and a half before she contacted the welfare authorities.  The purpose of the meetings was to strengthen the complainant.  The sessions included psycho-educational content to empower the complainant, similar to all victims of domestic violence.
132. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that during the treatment she explained to the complainant that according to her words and theory, the defendant's behavior towards her was violent. To her impression, the complainant did not understand that she was living in a dangerous and violent situation.  During the first meeting, the complainant took notes and the behaviors she suffered.  The witness explained to her that it was important to convey the matter to the court during her request for a protection order.  The complainant expressed concern that the defendant would take the children to Bnei Brak.  The witness asked the complainant if there was a risk to the children.  The complainant's mother was also present at the first meeting, as was Mrs. Schwartzglass (in part of the meeting).  The complainant's mother said that the violence against the complainant began 17 years ago.  The witness confirmed, in response to the defense attorney's question, that she was under the impression that the complainant's mother was more dominant when it came to feelings toward the defendant.
133. The witness also noted that when there is a suspicion of violence, the welfare authorities direct those who contact them to contact the court and the police. This does not intensify the events.  During the meetings, the issue of sexual violence on the part of the defendant against the complainant also came up.  In addition, the complainant feared that the defendant would "brainwash the children" and impose a religious way of life on them.

The Hafna Affair: