As for the testimony of Linoy Bar Geffen, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff as a close friend, she was not personally involved in the events, she has no personal knowledge of what happened, and her testimony should not be given weight. Even Birnit Goren, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff, was not involved in the events in real time at all, and no weight should be given to her testimony. In her cross-examination, Birnit Goren testified that the plaintiff had forwarded to her a dozen-page file with the investigation documents, including screenshots and appendices of "hearings on complaints or inquiries" (Transcript 1, p. 141, s. 22; p. 143, s. 7, 15-22, 27-32). She testified that "I asked him for documents, every document he mentioned... And he sent a heap and I read it" (p. 144, paras. 25-27);It was dozens of pages" (ibid., vol. 4). These documents were not disclosed or presented on behalf of the plaintiff, and this is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. I am aware of the plaintiff's argument on this matter, which was raised in the summaries of the reply on his behalf (paragraph 33), but I did not find in it any substance in view of Goren's clear statements in her cross-examination that the plaintiff had forwarded to her many documents from the clarification process.
- In summary of this part, I accept the complainants' version as detailed in the affidavits of the testimony on their behalf and in their testimonies in court.
III. Performing a masturbation motion during a broadcast
"One day, Dana claims, she saw Hofstein masturbate during the broadcast."
- According to Hofstein, this was a single incident that occurred while they were at the news desk and was broadcast in the background of an "item" about a woman's ejaculation on the "London and Kirschenbaum" program, and in response to the "item" he made a move towards television. In contrast to this version, the basis that emerges from the evidence is different. The two complainants testified that the "item" incident in the program had nothing to do with their complaint about indecent movement, and that these were various events (Transcript 2, p. 263, paras. 24-33). When Sapir was asked about this, she replied consistently, eloquently, and firmly that these were two different events (Transcript 2, pp. 236-237): "It was beyond the item that was" and "There are two cases [...] There was also a female masturbation item and there was another incident inside the studio that I can say that the plaintiff actually came and did this in front of my face [..] A movement of masturbation in the air." To the court's question, she replied, "That it was in the middle of a broadcast and I remember the visual appearance very much" and gave a detailed answer as to where she stood and where the plaintiff stood, in what place at the station and at what time it took place (p. 237, paras. 1-9). When asked about the item on the "London and Kirschenbaum" program, she described that "there was talk about female masturbation, about female ejaculation. It was an item in the background of the television that the televisions were running, and the plaintiff was terribly present at the discourse and drew the attention of those present at the desk to the item, created a conversation about it." When asked whether there was any movement on his part at that event, she replied that "the movement I remember specifically was in the studio" (i.e., in another event - A.N.b) And that around the "item" there was "a lot of talk present and a lot of obscenity talk on the matter."
- This version is consistent with Schiffer's affidavit and his testimony in court, which described that the complainants complained that the plaintiff made a "rude gesture toward his shame" and testified in a confident and convincing manner that "I remember the rude gesture even after 8 years" (Transcript 3, p. 229, paras. 20-23). Even in the e-mail message that Dekel sent to the Chief Education Officer in real time, he refers to a complaint about obscene movement, separately from a complaint about the "item" on Channel 10. This evidence strengthens the complainant's version that these were two different events - the "obscene movement incident" and the "item event in the London and Kirschenbaum program."
- As for the plaintiff's claim that there is a gap between the claim and the "masturbation movement" and the claim of "a crude movement that he made in the direction of his shame" - even if there is a difference between the two descriptions, it is a slight difference, which does not touch the substance, since the descriptions deal with a similar act. The case law recognized the possibility of inaccuracies and contradictions stemming from the passage of time (eight years in this case) and "the nature of the human race that does not have the memory of a computer or a robot" (Criminal Appeal 3372/11 Katzav v. State of Israel, paragraph 137 of the judgment of Judge (as described at the time) M. Naor (10.11.2011)).
As to the place where the incident took place - as it emerged from Schiffer's testimony and from the photos and video presented at the evidentiary hearing, the space of Ulpan E is adjacent and located contiguously to the control, and "Dana" confirmed in her interrogation that by the term "Ulpan E" she also refers to the control adjacent to it (p. 265, question 25), in any event, The plaintiff's version that the only incident that occurred was at the news desk during the broadcast of the item on the London and Kirschenbaum program was concealed, and the evidence indicates that the plaintiff made an indecent move in another incident.
- As for the plaintiff's claim in his summaries that the complainant's affidavit contains no facts or context of an event, and that when a person goes through a traumatic event he remembers details that are etched in his memory - the complainants in their cross-examination presented a detailed version that includes accurate descriptions, and they left a positive impression on me and I trusted their version. As for the claim that this is an "evolving version", which was detailed for the first time in court testimony and that the version is inconsistent with the schedules and dates on which "Dana" overlapped "Sapir" - the courts recognized the circumstances that cause witnesses complaining of sexual offenses to be characterized by "that things are mixed with each other, there is a lack of clarity on the question of what came before why. What exactly was said at one stage or another by any of the parties, and the like" and that "it is not possible to demand that a complaint of this kind be orderly, chronologically, documented, and structured in a way when there is a logical sequence between the various events that can be followed" (Criminal Appeal 9806/05 Anonymous v. State of Israel, para. 2 (January 8, 2007)). If so, I do not attribute to them the fact that their testimony in court was more detailed and complete than that brought in their affidavit and the certain ambiguity as to whether the events occurred at the time of the overlap, or afterwards. In any event, it appears that even the plaintiff does not dispute that he worked alongside the two complainants, and the contradictions pointed out by the plaintiff are not material and do not impair the overall sequence of events.
- I found it necessary to add before concluding that I do not accept the analysis conducted by the plaintiff in his summaries in paragraph 37 (with its sub-sections) and the claim that the complainants coordinated versions between them and planned to carry out a "targeted assassination" against him. In her cross-examination, "Dana" confirmed that she had spoken with "Sapir" before the interview with her, but she did not confirm that "Sapir" had shared with her the content of what she had said to the interviewer, but only that they had discussed that they had both received requests to be interviewed (p. 259, paras. 19-33). When asked once again whether "it is possible that she told you," she replied: "It is possible that she did not" (p. 260, paras. 1-2).
- Moreover, the evidence did not motivate the complainants to accuse the plaintiff of the allegations, to stick to this version years later, and to raise it on their own initiative to Politikali's investigative reporter in an interview she conducted with them about six years after the events took place. The claim that the plaintiff reprimanded "Dana" in one case, and this explains her desire to harm him, is not a serious enough argument for the purpose of establishing a motive for such a serious complaint, especially since it does not explain the complaint of "Sapir" (which is separate from "Dana" and stands on its own).
I do not accept the argument that little weight should be given to Sapir's remarks, since the interview with her was anonymous and she believed that she would not be required to give an account, and therefore she sailed with incorrect descriptions. First, in the absence of a logical motive, it shows that she did not lie intentionally, and that she lied about the plaintiff, simply because the interview with her took place anonymously (and this was years after the date of the events and her initiative). The conclusion drawn by the plaintiff also contradicts her choice to come and testify in the proceeding and the exposure that this entails for her (even if a gag order is imposed on her name in the proceeding, the choice to come and testify is exposed). As for the explanation given by the plaintiff in the summaries of his reply (paragraph 25) to the considerations that motivated the complainant to testify in court, it is not convincing and is not backed up.