Criminal Case (Haifa) 19071-09-18 State of Israel v. Anonymous - part 3

The defendant's testimony:

134. In his main interrogation, the defendant stated that the allegations against him did not exist and were not created, and that "they made a monster out of him," as he claimed. The defendant stated that about seven months before 1 November 2015, he accused the complainant of cheating on him.  Then the relationship began to tarnish, and the complainant behaved like a "rebellious woman."  She didn't wash her clothes, cursed him in front of the children, got up from the Shabbat meals shouting and cursed him.  He never acted violently towards the complainant or the children.  The home was a religious-Torah home, and violence was not suitable for this way of life.
135. The defendant explained the allegations against him by the phenomenon of "parental alienation." Before he accused the complainant of cheating on him, their lives were normal and normal.  From the moment the crisis broke out between him and the complainant, he tried to "mend the rifts" and to this end he worked to bring the complainant to Rabbi Shmuel.  This is despite the fact that the complainant did something that should not be done.  The complainant agreed to go to Rabbi Shmuel and agreed to divorce the defendant "in a dignified manner" and without slander.
136. On November 1, 2015, the defendant was on his way to his place of work. At 8:00 P.M., a police officer called him and ordered him to come for questioning for assaulting a spouse.  He was arrested, and spent the night in Kishon Detention Center, like a criminal.  The court ordered his release from detention.
137. The defendant went on to claim that he loved his children. He diaped them, walked with them, and did his homework with them.  He had been married to the complainant for about twenty years, and during that time there were never any complaints of violence.  Not in the education system, not in the health funds or in hospitals, not in the social services and not in the police.  Everything came up suddenly, after he accused the complainant of cheating on him.
138. As for the complaints of daughters A and B, the defendant confirmed that he had taken their mobile phones (although due to the storm of emotions, he did not say so during his interrogation by the police). He was proud that he had taken the telephones from them, which the complainant and her mother had bought.  The girls browsed websites that were "not educational, to say the least," as he put it.  In order to protect them, he took their telephones.  The girls lived under a religious Torah education.  The complainant decided to deviate from the path of the Torah and took the children to her parents.  The defendant noted that during their testimony in court, he saw them for the first time in more than four years.  He couldn't believe what his ears heard, and he couldn't believe how they looked and were dressed today.  When he heard their testimonies, he could not believe the dimensions of the "parental alienation."  He claimed that his daughters were not telling the truth, and that their testimony was due to incitement by the complainant and her mother.
139. The complainant's mother also did not testify the truth. The defendant's family and the complainant's parents used to visit each other on Saturdays.  The complainant's mother knows the defendant well.  In her testimony, she gave a version that was not true.  The complainant's mother is a domineering woman.  This is how she treats her husband, and this is how she treats her sons-in-law.  The complainant's mother's claim that the defendant beat Y. is also not true and has nothing to do with reality.
140. In his cross-examination, the defendant stated that he had grown up in a religious-Torah home, and had received a Torah education. He served in the IDF, and after his discharge he worked in various places in the defense establishment.  The defendant confirmed that he did not work for eight years, and during those years he took care of his children and played the role of a mother, while the complainant studied and invested in her career.  In addition, he studied in a chevruta.  The defendant confirmed that at that time the source of income was the complainant, as well as money he received from the National Insurance Institute for a work accident in which he was injured.
141. The defendant claimed that before the crisis broke out with the complainant, when the children would come home, he used to do homework with them, play and walk with them. During Shabbat he used to recite the weekly Torah portion, and all kinds of halachot.  In the house, the customary dress is the same as in any religious home: a headscarf for a woman, a skirt and clothing that is permitted according to Halacha.  The defendant rejected the claim that he forbade his daughters to wear sandals, and claimed that there was no halachic prohibition to do so.
142. The defendant confirmed that he had filed a lawsuit against Rafael, and that he had been assisted by his daughter, A., to type in documents. According to him, this is about an hour or two during the afternoon or evening hours.  The defendant denied the claim that A. typed for him for long hours.
143. According to the defendant, until April 2015 they lived as a normal family. Family and friends used to visit them, including friends of the children.  The defendant denied his daughter B.'s claim that she was ashamed to bring her friends home, and explained this by "parental alienation" and incitement on the part of the complainant and her mother.  The complainant, in the seven months preceding the filing of the complaint with the police, told him that she would take his house, property and children.  He himself is connected to the children, whom he raised and cared for.
144. When B. was 18 years old, a lawyer called him and asked for his approval so that B. could serve in national service, as well as for her to receive treatments for anorexia. He refused, and was amazed at how a healthy girl like B. had reached a state of anorexia.  According to him, B. became ill three years after the complainant and her children left the house.  The complainant and her mother took advantage of the divorce to slander him.
145. The defendant stated that the testimony of the children's investigator came from the complainant's mouth. The complainant knew that due to her betrayal of him, she was in a "bad" situation, and therefore added the libel of violence against the children.  In her first interrogation with the police, the complainant stated only that the defendant was violent towards her.  Only after she received advice from her mother and her lawyer did complaints of violence against the children increase.
146. The defendant stated that he knew that the complainant had cheated on him, since he had seen lip prints on the complainant's body, in private places. In addition, she would come home late at night, and for no reason.  He knows that she had a relationship with a certain person.  He slammed the complainant's name.  The defendant was asked why this claim was not hurled at the complainant during her testimony in court, and he replied that he had raised the claim "where necessary" and also with the police.  The defendant was asked why he did not raise specific allegations regarding the complainant's infidelity in his interrogation with the police, and replied that the police had spoken about the suspicion of infidelity in general.  The defendant noted that he did not tell anyone about his suspicions against the complainant, except for Rabbi Eliyahu.  The rabbi summoned them to him, and on the same day the defendant was summoned to the police.
147. During his cross-examination, the defendant was asked to provide his response to the complainant's specific claims, and replied that the things the complainant said were never created. According to him, he continued to live with the complainant for seven months despite his claims against her, since he is by nature a peace-seeker.  The defendant did not know how to answer why the complainant waited for seven months from the moment he accused her of betraying him until she filed a complaint with the police.  According to him, during that period the complainant "built a file for him."  The defendant further claimed that the complainant was trying to sabotage the meetings between him and his children, and was even trying to prevent the last contact he had left with his son W.  From the outset, the complainant agreed to extensive visitation arrangements between the defendant and the children.  Later, she added allegations of the defendant's violence against the children, while taking advantage of her connections with the police and social services.
148. The defendant noted that he continues to respect the complainant and the children, despite everything that has been done to him. He is interested in a relationship with his children, even though the complainant and her parents prevent him from doing so.  Prior to G.'s Bar Mitzvah, the complainant agreed that the defendant would be present at the Bar Mitzvah celebration and that the defendant would teach G. for his Bar Mitzvah.  After the complainant's mother objected, the consent was revoked.  According to the defendant, the things that G. allegedly gave to the social workers are not in fact statements made by G.  expected the defendant to be present at his Bar Mitzvah celebration.  G. suffered from anxiety for years, even before the family left home.  This was due to a barrage of Katyushas fired at Karmiel.  Due to G.'s fears, the complainant asked to give him Ritalin treatment, but the defendant did not agree.  The defendant turned to Rabbi Abuhasira, who gave blessings that helped, and also brought for three special drops from a rabbi in Bnei Brak.  According to the defendant, G. refused to come to testify because he knew the truth and knew that nothing had ever happened.  As for the allegations that he took G. to the shower room and beat him, the defendant denied this.  According to him, there was a case in which he took G. to the shower room in order to perform a treatment against lice in his hair, and G. cried because of it.  This is not his violence towards G.
149. The defendant claimed that as in any normal home, a plate falls here and there, and it also happens that "the plate was thrown into the ceiling, flew here and flew there." This incident, which did happen, was taken and intensified, and the defendant turned into a monster (p. 267 of the transcript).
150. The defendant was asked how his claim regarding his incrimination by the complainant reconciles with D.'s testimony before the children's investigator, according to which the complainant also used violence against her. The defendant replied that this shows "how fertile imagination the children have," wondered why nothing was done about D.'s claim, and claimed that it "doesn't smell good."
151. The defendant was asked whether over the past four and a half years he had tried to initiate any contact with his two older daughters. The defendant replied that the complainant had prevented him from doing so, while operating her connections in the social services.
152. According to the defendant, there were arguments in the house, as in any normative home. He never threw the laundry rack at the complainant (and he doesn't even know if the rack is called a "laundry horse" in his house).  With regard to the incident of the fish plate, it is possible that a plate fell, but the complainant intensified it into a real violent incident.  All the allegations against him, which included knives and other kitchen utensils, are taken from a movie and did not exist and were not created.
153. When child C was in elementary school, complaints were received regarding his behavior at school. The defendant and the complainant dealt with the matter together.  The defendant denied the complainant's version, according to which the educational staff suspected that G. had been exposed to domestic violence.  The defendant also completely denied the bicycle incident.
154. The defendant claimed that the incident with Y. never happened, and that the fact is that Y.'s parents did nothing. The defendant denied the claim that he ever hit D.  The defendant denied the complainant's claim that he had disappeared the television set.  He claimed that they had never had a television set in the house.  The defendant denied the complainant's claim that he would have checked the credit card's debit pages and demanded explanations from the complainant.  He also denied the complainant's claim that he had "censored" the mail.  According to him, the complainant also had a key to the mailbox.
155. During his re-interrogation, the defendant claimed that he had tried to contact daughters A and B, and had sent them letters. The defendant's sister also sent them letters.  He asked a social worker to hand over the letters to the girls, but the social worker claimed that they were incitement letters.  The defendant even tried to reach the children through the welfare officer, Yitzhak Maoz, but was unable to do so.  He gave gifts to the contact center so that they could be given to his children, but the complainant threw them in the trash.

Testimony of Mr. Eli Tayeb:

156. In his main interrogation, the witness stated that he was a friend of the defendant and had known him for about eight years. Over the years, he visited the defendant's home several times.  The relationship between the two began in the framework of work.  During the witness's visits to the defendant's home (about once a month), the witness did not witness violence on the part of the defendant toward the other members of the household.
157. In his cross-examination, the witness noted that he learned of the defendant's arrest only two weeks later. The defendant called him and told him that he was under arrest, and that the complainant and the defendant "don't get along."  The defendant also told the witness that he had discovered that the complainant was "not loyal to him."  The defendant did not share personal matters with him.  The witness confirmed that he could not rule out that there was violence.  If he had been exposed to violence, he would have commented on the defendant, and he would not have remained his friend.  The witness stated that he was not aware that the defendant had not worked for eight years.

Testimony of Mr. Yosef Turgeman:

158. The witness stated in his main interrogation that he was the defendant's older brother, and that the two had a very good relationship. The two grew up together in a religious/traditional family.  The witness's family had a good relationship with the complainant.  He was surprised to hear about the complainant's claims, since he had not heard or knew anything about it.  During the period when the defendant's family lived in the city of Ma'alot, the defendant's family and the witness's family would meet on a daily basis.  After the defendant's family left for Karmiel, they spoke every few days, and the witness's family would invite them to holidays and Shabbat.
159. The witness ruled out the possibility that there were acts of violence on the part of the defendant towards his children, because otherwise he would have known about it. The complainant and the children never even hinted at this.  The witness noted that a co-worker of his lives next door to the defendant.  He had never heard of it from that neighbor.  The witness believes that this is a libel stemming from revenge.  The witness confirmed that the defendant was more strict about a religious lifestyle than he was.  At family gatherings, he did not see that the defendant was religiously rigid.  In addition, over the years, he did not notice any change in the defendant, with regard to the degree to which he adhered to religious commandments.  The witness added that in his opinion, the children's complaints against the defendant were the result of the intervention of the complainant's mother.  This is a domineering and opinionated woman.  The defendant told the witness that he did not get along with his mother-in-law, and the complainant did not like this.  The mother-in-law dictated to the defendant and the complainant what to do on a daily basis, and the defendant cut off contact with her.  The witness noted that the defendant was a very family man, and had taken care of the children when they were sick.
160. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he had the impression that the complainant was an introverted person. However, she had soul conversations with the witness, and told him about the financial problems they had.  She never told the witness that the defendant was hurting her or being violent towards her.  The complainant was a positive and normative person, although sometimes she had "winks".  The witness was asked if he could point out the defendant's negative qualities, and he answered in the negative.  The witness immediately knew about the defendant's arrest.  The witness inquired about what was happening, and the defendant shared with him about his wife's complaint, after the defendant suspected her of cheating on him and accused him of his suspicions at the complainant.
161. The witness noted that since the defendant and the complainant separated, no contact had been made between the witness and the defendant's children. Since then, he himself has met G. and V. only once.  They were forbidden to meet the children.  According to the witness, the complainant's parents took the children as "hostages."  The witness confirmed that he did not give testimony to the police regarding the defendant and the complainant, because he was not summoned.
162. The witness was asked to explain the fact that even today the children are not interested in contact with the defendant. According to him, the complainant's mother "brainwashed them", protected them and took care of them.  That's why the children chose a side.  The witness further claimed that the defendant told him that the complainant had made connections with the welfare authorities in order to blacken the defendant's face.

Summaries of the parties' arguments:

163. In her written summaries, counsel for the accuser argued that the prosecution witnesses' versions (and in particular the testimonies of the complainant, and daughters A and B) were intertwined and proved the defendant's guilt. These are ongoing violent incidents, and therefore no witness is expected to remember every detail of each event.  The defendant's version, on the other hand, is false and unsubstantiated.  The testimony of the two defense witnesses did nothing to clarify the points in dispute.
164. At the hearing on September 15, 2020, counsel for the accuser completed her arguments. It was claimed that the children's interrogations were carried out in a professional and skilled manner, and in accordance with the instructions.  The testimonies of the social workers, and in particular the testimony of Ms. Schwarzglass, indicate not only the complainant's mental state, but also constitute evidence of the truth of the content.  It was claimed that the complainant's version before Ms. Schwarzglass was a victim's statement of a violent offense, close to the very occurrence of the incident.  It was further claimed that the complainant's versions to the police did not constitute an "evolving version".  In her testimony, the complainant explained why in her first interrogation with the police she did not refer to the defendant's violence against the children, and this explanation was supported by the testimony of the complainant's mother.  The mother's testimony is also an exception to hearsay testimony, since this is the first opportunity for the complainant to tell about the incident of violence she experienced from the defendant.  Regarding the claim of delay, counsel for the accuser confirmed that a long time had passed from the time the offenses were committed until the filing of the indictment, but that part of the delay was due to the defendant not appearing for interrogations.  In addition, it was necessary to collect testimonies from five minors, and after the case reached the State Attorney's Office, the investigation was required to be completed.  The aforesaid explains the delay in filing the indictment.  With regard to the fact that child C did not testify, it was argued that the defendant could still be convicted of committing offenses against him, and that the evidence submitted was sufficient: the testimony of the daughters, the complainant, and the testimony of the complainant's mother about his mental state.
165. In its written summaries, the defense petitioned to order that the defendant be acquitted of the offenses attributed to him. It was claimed that there was a flaw in the indictment, since in most of the counts the accuser did not mention the date of the events.  It was also alleged that there was a significant delay in the filing of the indictment, and in a manner that impaired the defendant's ability to defend himself.  It was further claimed that the complainant suppressed her testimony, and from her developing testimony there is a clear tendency to incriminate the defendant.  The complainant had a motive to make false accusations against the defendant, since she could not continue to live a Torah lifestyle.  With regard to all the events described in the indictment, the defense focused on contradictions and inconsistencies between the witnesses' versions.  In addition, it was claimed that the testimonies showed "contamination" of the interrogations, the result of conversations between family members about the events described in the indictment.  In addition, and with regard to the accuser's claims in the case of child G, these are general accusations, where G. himself did not testify, and therefore there is no sufficient evidentiary basis for convicting the defendant on this point.  In contrast to the claims of the prosecution witnesses, the defendant was interrogated four times by the police, in his interrogations he denied the allegations against him and gave a consistent and pertinent version.  The defendant claimed that the complainant and daughters A and B had an interest in incriminating him.  The testimony of the children's investigator, Ms. Hamo, raises the inherent problem in child interrogations: child investigators do not determine that the child being interrogated is lying, and in fact they have the power to give the child's testimony weight that can hardly be challenged.  In addition, the reliability of the child's testimony is not evaluated in comparison to objective data, external to the child's own words.  It was also claimed that the testimony of the welfare workers is hearsay testimony, based on conversations they had with the children.  These conversations are contaminated in the vast majority, and therefore zero weight should be attributed to the testimony of the welfare workers.
166. In completing his oral arguments, counsel for the defendant emphasized the background to the filing of the complaint and the indictment – a civil legal proceeding that took place between the complainant and the defendant, from which the complexity of the matter of visitation arrangements with the children arose. The defense attorney also emphasized the discrepancy between the evidence presented and the allegations in the indictment – a gap that is not explained in the accuser's summaries.  It was argued, with respect to the alleged acts of the defendant against child C, that it is indeed possible in certain circumstances to convict a defendant even without the testimony of a victim of an offense.  However, for this purpose, clear and unequivocal external evidence is needed.  In our case, however, the case is different.  It was also claimed that the testimonies of the social workers were hearsay testimony.  These testimonies can be inferred, at most, what the children heard from the complainant's mouth, but not beyond that.

Discussion and Decision:

167. Before deciding on the merits of arguments, testimonies and evidence, I will briefly address a number of preliminary assumptions, in the light of which the parties' arguments will be examined.

Testimonies of Victims of Domestic Violence:

168. Domestic violence offenses, and in particular offenses that last for years, carry with them a special character. Over the years, the courts have recognized the inherent difficulty encountered by victims of domestic violence offenses when reconstructing details of a traumatic event.  The difficulty lies in a number of factors, both internal and external.

There is a great deal of complexity in giving incriminating testimony against a family member, and this is even more true in relation to testimony against an authoritative family member (a parent, for example).  The dissonance between the image of the parent as a benevolent, warm, and protective figure, and the image of the parent as an abusive, intimidating, and abusive figure – causes great difficulty in pointing an accusing finger at the parent.