This is also the theory presented by the plaintiff in his summaries that after "Sapir" gave "free rein to her tongue" in a conversation with Politikaly's investigative reporter, she turned to "Dana" to back her up with the researcher - and that "Dana" in a conversation with the researcher "invented inventions" after hearing the details from "Sapir" just to back it up - is speculation that has no anchor in the evidence.
The complainants appeared in court, eight years after the events, even though they were not obligated to do so, were interrogated at length, and answered in a convincing and trustworthy manner, despite the difficulty that comes with appearing for interrogation in court in general, and in testimony related to complaints of sexual harassment in particular. As "Dana" testified in her cross-examination: "I took a day off from my work to come and defend what happened 8 years ago [...] Even now, I don't like it, if it's not clear" (pp. 275, 1-3). In the circumstances of this case, the lack of a motive, along with the convincing testimony years later, therefore supports the conclusion that the complainants are telling the truth.
and(3) "I masturbate to the wall" - Title of the section dealing with the plaintiff
- The case law was that the headline used has a special status, and there are cases in which it is appropriate to examine the headline separately from the body of the article. This is due to its position at the top of the publication, the size and emphasis of the letters, and the fact that sometimes readers skip the article and read only the title. and "if a certain impression is created at the beginning of an article, it will not be easily erased by other things that appear in the continuation" (Electric Company case, 354). On the uniqueness and status of the headline, which is sometimes a "self-contained animal" that should be examined separately from the body of the article in certain cases, see: Civil Appeal 5653/98 Plus v. Dina, IsrSC 55(5) 865, 876 (2001); Uri Shenhar, Defamation Laws 213 (2nd Edition, 2024)).
- In the matter of a civil appeal, the Honorable Deputy President Justice E. Rivlin compared a trailer ("promo") to the headline that appears at the beginning of a newspaper article, and noted its unique characteristics:
Many readers read selectively - skipping the articles themselves and reading only the main headlines in the newspaper. Another reason exists where the headline creates a different impression from the one accompanying the article, and then, sometimes, even if the article presents a balanced picture, it will not be enough to change the first impression created by the headline. If so, with regard to a headline that appears next to the body of the article, all the more so with regard to the promo, which is broadcast separately from the content of the article, and many viewers saw only it ( Civil Appeal Dayan, p. 466, references removed).