Zalman's verdict ( Google translation)

BSP 55271-09-11 State of Israel vs. Zalman Cohen (District - Jerusalem, Amnon Cohen) 07/08/2014

20/07/2014 10:27:07

Indecent assault | sexual offenses - court convicted the accused of molesting minors in the case known Nachlaot affair ". Once it was determined that the versions of events were minor and reliability together constitute aid. The indictment in question is one of three indictments filed in respect of sexual abuse of minors occurred in the case, which is known as the "Nachlaot affair". As described in the indictment, on several occasions been accused of molesting a partner by the other in the house of me in the other neighborhood. Argued that, among other things, ordered the defendant to children being naked, touching each other and touch it. In addition, it was argued that the defendant stood and watched while he committed another indecent assault and one defendant events Hmthrs filmed with a video camera. In one of the islands claimed that two children using a toy gun, that you should not tell their parents what happened, since other children stated they did killed. Respect of the actions described above, the defendant was accused of three counts of performing indecent acts with minors under 16 years not free consent, pursuant to section 348 (b) In section 345 (b) (1) and section 345 in circumstances (a) (1) of the Act. In addition, the defendant was accused of the crime of coerced testimony by way of threats, under section 245 (b) of the Act. Further action in respect of the offense the defendant was accused of performing an indecent act against a minor under the age of 14 years, pursuant to section 348 (a) In section 345 (a) (3) of the Act. Placing the focus of the evidentiary basis for establishing accusing alleged in the indictment, are interrogations of minors and children's testimony of investigators.Children researchers found that the minor does not have to testify in court in light of the current mental state and fear caused them emotional damage. Therefore, accusing asked to adopt the impression of the researchers to determine that they have given minor version is reliable. As regards the requirement of assistance, accusing argued that versions of minors help one another, as well as their behavior during the event and after the discovery of the affair as testimonies came to parents, the things themselves, and minors gave testimonies caregivers. He denied the charges against him overwhelmingly. He said he was a victim of a witch hunt "against the backdrop of an atmosphere of fear, hysteria and paranoia afflicting the neighborhood after the start of the investigation and led to rumors on the subject.Residents, the defendant claimed, sought a scapegoat and blamed anyone unusual in the neighborhood. Moreover, the defendant claimed that his ex-wife chases him and is responsible for the plot concocted against him in the neighborhood, so by her friend, the mother of one of the minors. Subsequently, it is argued that the unique structure of the neighborhood (which is a crowded neighborhood where the houses are built around shared courtyards) and the close ties between its (belonging to the Orthodox community closed), fanned the air of hysteria and panic and led to contamination of the testimony of children at high volume. The defendant claims that all of these high probability set up, they told the children that the events did not occur in reality, but this is false memories. This situation, combined with descriptions of children's exposure to sexual abuse, suggestive questions asked by non-professional factors explored these claims and the negative things they had heard, gave rise to false memories in children, that the defendant struck them. Finally, with respect to the requirements of the aid, it is argued that if One of contaminated evidence, it can not also help other evidence. According to the defendant, all lead to the conclusion that even a reasonable doubt acquittal. The Court held: Honorable Senior Judge A. Cohen stated that to convict the defendant of the offenses attributed to him. Determined that there is no dispute in the neighborhood and created a tense atmosphere that led to hysterical exchanges between residents of the neighborhood are the same as to harm, both as to the identity of child victims and vulnerable Content. Even police do not dispute the existence of environmental contamination in this case, however after watching carefully tape the interrogation of children, found the Honorable Judge to adopt their impressions of the researchers to determine that version of the children reliably and told of events experienced by themselves and it is not a memory false or copying of the things they had heard from others. States that pollution intensity diminishes the matter is when it comes to the reliability of their version of events and the accused subject of the indictment as described events experienced by themselves and not exaggerated descriptions about the part of the defendant. As is well known, Article 11 of the Rules of Evidence Amendment (Protection of Children), 1955 provides that no person be convicted based on the evidence collected to the researcher boy children, but if she was the kind of extra visual aid. Determined that a severe mental condition are minors at the time event and after exposure, an aid to their version. was also found assistance as practiced by three minors each other when said evidence of similar acts of the defendant. determined that these are the additional evidence required such assistance. Moreover, it can be left to use a minor confession one to the researcher children, which in itself requires assistance, aid to this message given by the other minor. stated, versions of the four children were the most reliable and there is no fear of false accusation or contamination of evidence or Lhatkn. therefore determined that there is no reason they will be assistance to each other . The defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent acts with minors under 16 years, not free consent, pursuant to section 348 (b) In section 345 (b) (1) and section 345 in circumstances (a) (1) of the Act. Also, was convicted of indecent assault against a minor under the age of 14 years, pursuant to section 348 (a) In section 345 (a) (3) of the Act. Also, was convicted of coerced testimony by way of intimidation, under section 245 (b). Advocacy on behalf of Zohar Giat; Named defendant: Gilad waves. The Jerusalem District Court Criminal Case 55271-09-11 State of Israel vs. Cohen to: Honorable Judge Amnon Cohen, accusing the state of Israel by the Jerusalem District Attorney (Criminal) Represented by Attorney Zohar Giat against the accused by Zalman Cohen "Counsel for the Attorney Gilad Verdict waves 1 on 9/27/11 filed against the defendant, Zalman Cohen, charging him performing indecent acts with minors, in Nachlaot, Jerusalem, Israel (hereinafter - the neighborhood), where he lived during the period relevant to the indictment , Tabor Street 3. 2 as described in the indictment, during 2009, was accused of molesting a partner by the other in the home of another neighborhood. It was argued that while naked upper body, the other parent D., a minor born in the month of April, 2003, and other children, being naked and punctuate their feet, again and again. Alleged that the defendant stood and watched while he made other indecent acts, in order to stimulation, gratification or sexual humiliation. 3 In 2010 or thereabouts, I ordered the defendant, a minor born in the month of September, 2001, and brother of Y., go to the house. The defendant has spread and walk home naked and told me to 'take his clothes off. I. The defendant refused and slapped him. As a result, the spread. In addition, the defendant told me, touch defendant's penis Y. did so. Then, pinched his genitals accused of Y. For half a minute. It was argued that the 'tried to escape from the defendant, but the defendant grabbed him and ordered him to lie down on the bed, face down. Y. lay like that for a long time, until he was told the defendant to get dressed, then ran away from home. 4 In 2010 or thereabouts, it's the 'house in the neighborhood where he lived a man named Benzion own fruit. The defendant, Benzion and others were in the house and there were other children - boys and girls. Alleged that the defendant and others ordered pairs children, when J was a couple of minor minister. The defendant said, 'and to the Minister, that they should do as he says, and if not, beat them. I ordered the defendant, and the Minister, to undress and touch each other's genitals and lie about each other. They did as he said. Course of things, the defendant grabbed the camera aimed at the children and forbid them to talk to each other. Next, the defendant threatened to 'Minister', using a toy gun, you should not tell their parents what happened, because the other kids did as mentioned - were killed. I ordered the defendant, and the minister, dressed and leave, and they did as he said. 5 In 2010 or thereabouts, arrived S., a minor born in the month of February 2002, the defendant's home, accompanied by her friends. Defendant ordered S. go into the bathroom and ordered her to undress. Then, spread himself. The defendant demanded GP to put the legs on either side of the tub and then put a wooden stick about two feet in length between her legs, leaned into him and touched her vagina while he was hurting her and tells her not to move. So, ordered S. touching his penis. S. did so, touched his penis for about a minute. Next, the defendant took the Q from the bathroom and put her out. Some time later, the defendant left the company and asked GP to log back into the bathroom. Q entered, and the defendant told her to lie on her stomach and spread her legs, adding that to her scream when you let it stick. Defendant placed on the body of S. stick and when leaning on it, it made her a bloody scratch. Next, the defendant said S. and her friends, that they must be careful to no one would see them coming out of his house. 6 with respect to the actions described above, were attributed to the defendant three counts of making indecent acts with minors under 16 years, not free consent, pursuant to section 348 (b) In section 345 (b) (1) and section 345 in circumstances (a) (1) Penal Code, 1977 (hereinafter - the Law). Additionally, the defendant was accused of the crime of coerced testimony by way of threats, under section 245 (b) of the Act, with respect to the moving experience, by way of intimidation and threats, not to give notice thereof to the investigation by law. 7 In addition, according to the indictment, during the year 2007 or thereabouts, he noticed m, a minor born in the month of January, 1999, some of the neighborhood children of immigrants Sichuan Benjamin's apartment, located on 12 Elkanah neighborhood. M joined the children and entered the apartment. Inner room apartment, the defendant met the children and spoke with them. Then, ordered the children to undress and they did so, including m, and sat on the floor. The defendant also took off all his clothes except his socks and shoes, and then presented the children with a computer, a movie "indecent" (exact contents unknown Accuser), as he sat behind the children. During the screening, the defendant gave each child a bag containing candy. At the end of the film, the defendant told the children that they can dress up and dress well. While dressed, defendant instructed the children not to tell what they had seen the film and so do not tell him that they had candy. When finished m dress, left the apartment. 8 in respect of the act described above, defendant was accused of performing an indecent act on a minor under the age of 14 years, pursuant to section 348 (a) In section 345 (a) (3) of the Act. 9 general background, says, that the indictment in question is one of three indictments filed in this Court, in respect of sexual abuse of minors that occurred in the neighborhood (which is known as the episode "Nachlaot case"). The police investigation into the matter began in October 2010, when interrogated suspected injury to a minor one by one suspect (Benjamin Sichuan). Around June-July 2011 some of the minors were interrogated in the case of Sichuan, began to tell on the other and began to hit the "second wave" of the investigation. It turned out that the violation is outstanding - both in terms of the large number of children affected and in terms of the nature of the injury, which did not become "one on one" but "how the face of some" Several hurt together several casualties together. were questioned about 15 other suspects, including defendant, and at the end of the investigation it was decided to file charges against the three: Benjamin Sichuan, Ben Zion own fruit and defendant in this case. 10 focus of the evidentiary basis to establish the alleged accuser laid in the indictment of the four investigations are minor - D, J, Q and m - and the testimony of the children when Brown researchers (who studied the Y. M.) and Hadas Namir (which investigated the D and Q). Researchers children found that indicate the minor in court, given the mental state present and fear caused them emotional damage as a result of class and the process of witnessing (see Exhibit T / 8 for J; exhibit a / 13 for m exhibit a / 19 for d and exhibit a / 20 for that). Therefore, accusing asked to adopt the impression of researchers and establish that they have given minor version is reliable. As regards the requirement of assistance, accusing argued that versions of minors help one another, as well as their behavior during the event and after the discovery of the affair, as testimony came to their parents, their minor things and gave testimonies of staff and caregivers Rebecca White Khalili. 11 The defendant, in turn, Village sweeping charges against him, "it never happened" (p 1046 S. 12), arguing that all his life he deals with healing people, including people who have experienced sexual harassment, "accusing me of things not only I did not do but I can not stand someone else to do "(p 1058 S. 8-9). He said he was a victim of a witch hunt "against the backdrop of an atmosphere of fear, hysteria and paranoia afflicting the neighborhood after the start of the investigation and led to rumors on the subject.Residents, the defendant claimed, sought a scapegoat and blamed anyone unusual in the neighborhood: "They did not like people who are not like them" (p 1063 S. 7-8). His oddity, it was expressed divorced and lived alone. In addition, the Defendant claimed that his work in organizing tours forgiveness neighborhood groups, secular, caused great resentment among the residents, and has also created an atmosphere of "poisoning the general" against him, "First of all adults and therefore the children": "There are many people who talk about me as a kind of Monster because my engagements with tourists "(p 1084 S. 13-18). Furthermore, the Defendant claimed that his ex-wife chases him and is responsible for the plot concocted against him in the neighborhood, so using friend for years (so he claims), the mother of the minor that: "my ex-wife found a hand performs" (p 1058 S. 19). His attorney further argued in this regard, that the mother of Q is known and dominant figure in the neighborhood, who led the smear campaign against him: "It was an Arab village mukhtar considered" (p 1394 S. 4). 12 Consequently, the defendant's counsel argued that the unique structure of the neighborhood (which is crowded neighborhood where the houses are built around shared courtyards) and the close ties between its (belonging to the Orthodox community closed), fanned the hysteria and panic atmosphere, leading to infection testimony of children, the power High: children, she claimed, "did not live in a vacuum." They were influenced by the mood of revealing rumors regarding the identity of that damage, and in particular, send a finger at the defendant, and display it as a negative and dangerous. therefore exposed to exchange many things among local residents on the subject of sexual abuse (some even As part assemblies parents many participants), including the descriptions of sex, are not typical of their age and the society to which they belong. Moreover, discussed the children about what is happening even among themselves. Counsel for the defendant further argued that in their attempt to clarify whether children were injured, explore them unprofessionally mothers, while uncontrolled transfer of information. They put pressure on children to tell about the events in which soldiers, made use of manipulations to get them to talk and ask questions and talk suggestive, triggered the imagination of children (for example, children said, "We saw you in", "We heard you were in ..."). Sometimes, they questioned the parents of other children, single mothers and even took a group of kids together to walk around the neighborhood and asked them to point out the houses in which events occurred. Besides questioning by mothers, some children also were questioned by their older sisters and by social therapists, investigations, that her view of the defendant's counsel, were also directed and professionalism. 13 According to the defendant's counsel, all of these high probability set up, they told the children that the events did not occur in reality, but it is their false memories: "It is not correct to say, no smoke without fire, there is another way" (p 1448 S. 28 -29.) She claimed that the pressure exerted by their parents tell children that were hurt, the children created a motivation to please them. This situation, combined with descriptions of children's exposure to sexual abuse, suggestive questions asked by non-professional factors explored them and stuff Negative hearing on the defendant, gave rise to false memories in children, that the defendant struck them. 14 In this matter, defendant's counsel filed two opinions. First, on behalf of Prof. Jonathan Goshen, a psychologist who studies memory and processes of suggestion (evidence of infection) (Exhibit N / 31). Professor Goshen introduced the theory that, in a situation where child hear or see information that makes it think, meditate or visualize content related to a particular event, even if the event had not occurred, it undergoes a process of self-persuasion that the event occurred (process suggestion). suggestion leads to confusion between reality and imagination so that the child can not distinguish between them, and finally he "remember" events that never took place - was created in his memory false. opinion of Prof. Goshen, in the present case were exposed to four minor amounts and types of information "exaggeratedly most imaginable, both for quantity and due proportion" ( p 10 of the opinion). He went even further to say that "there is a suggestion that seemed processes bewildering state of Israel" (p 1291 S. 4-5 cross-examination by the Advocacy), adding that when it comes to children, the process of suggestion is "very easy" and can occur even saying "very simple" (p 1206 S. 20-21). Taking into account the usual exposure supposedly great "quality" exceptional "case at hand, argued Professor Goshen, that the probability of them reported minor memories are false memories, is very high (p 1220 S. 25 prescribes, 1221 S. 18). 15 For Professor Goshen, testimony of children who are characterized suggestion process apparently complete reliability. For the subjective event experienced them in real memories of the children so they also report the same way that events were reported which actually experienced them. The difficulty in this situation, it argued Professor Goshen, is there a way to trace the factual truth and to know whether the information provided by the child in his investigation reflects a real event or a false memory, that did not happen. No power of classical reliability tests, which are designed to distinguish between true and false, false separate memories and real memory (p 4 opinion).Therefore, the opinion of Prof. Goshen, when we are dealing with a false memory resulting from the process of suggestion, reliability testimony itself is compromised. 16 Similar sentiments were also from additional expert on behalf of the defense, Dr. Daniel Gottlieb, a clinical psychologist and family therapist. Referring diagnostic tool which researchers did children in order to assess the reliability of the use of minors - the CBCA (Criteria-based Content Analysis) - turned Dr. Gottlieb, a number of articles which stated that effectiveness of the method is limited "when H'mskrim, really believe that they are telling the truth" (Exhibit N / 29). According to him, there were cases in which the people, who believed that past event, received a high score according to the criteria of the CBCA and the words were hearing - even though the event had not occurred. Also claimed that is, that the more times a child returning to the event details before questioning by an investigator children (and, according to the defense, that was our case), it is very possible higher CBCA. 17 For these reasons, defendant's counsel argued that even if the CBCA effective in principle, the special circumstances that characterize the present case - Multi-threatening, multi-casualty, ongoing sexual assault and high intensity infection - is not effective. It is not can clean up their version of the four minor infection and to determine whether reported false memories or the memories real. implication is that it was not possible to determine in this case finding credible versions of all minors. Counsel for the defendant further argued that even though the circumstances of the case was the Researchers children to take more care during the investigation, in practice, it was not. For her, the researchers over-identification line, and were affected by any provision in the judgment struck. They did not address the extent required for the effect of pollution on children's testimony and deepened their investigation to uncover whether contamination. In particular, argued that the researcher conducted interviews myrtle not open, asking suggestive questions and minors to mention reduced D. The defendant's name as one of harm, said it reduced before herself. 18 Finally, referring to the requirement, the defendant's counsel argued that if the evidence of one polluted, then it can not also help other evidence. Therefore argued that the accuser did not present objective external evidence to support minor version. All of this leads, according to counsel for the accused, the acquittal of the accused, if reasonable doubt. 19 In light of the arguments raised, I find to stand on two general points, before I turn to discuss the various events that are the subject of the indictment. First, the nature of environmental pollution and the other in this case, is the power of conventional investigative techniques, to distinguish a true memory from a false event, even in situations of high intensity infection. Environmental pollution 20 There is no dispute that the neighborhood atmosphere of hysteria and panic, following reports of the extent of sexual abuse the children of the neighborhood. The unique structure of the neighborhood, where the houses are built around courtyards joint density, as well as the fact that this is a closed Orthodox community where everyone knows everyone, a considerable contribution to this situation and inflame her air of panic. In the words of the researcher complete saint: "The neighborhood was in an uproar" (p 535 S. 10th). He said the "whole story started" No one suspects harassed, that they broke and destroyed the potted plants in his garden (p 543 S. 23-25). She said also that of the mother, the situation was, 'All the people in the neighborhood are talking about it "(Exhibit F / 24 S. 15). Khalili white nanny Child Protection Association, also said that at the beginning of 2011 turned to the mother of Q, to meet with the parents in the neighborhood, because they are under pressure and turmoil and do not know how to talk to their children. She accepted her request and held a parent meeting, attended by 30 mothers (p 840 S. 22 prescribes 841 S. 17th). She said mothers were indeed very upset and meeting intended to "lower the flame" and explain to parents in general on the subject of sexual abuse and encourage that you can recover from it. 21 neighborhood stress can also learn from two letters written by an attorney on behalf of some parents Sdovnik (on 02/08/11 and on 08/03/11), in which it requested the police to take action to extend the arrest of three suspects until the end of proceedings, since there is great concern among children from the possibility that they will be released to house arrest and return to the neighborhood. Attorney Sdovnik even asked the police to come up with a picture of the suspects in custody, because the children panicked and hysterical 'reality' suspects avenge them (exhibits v / v and 10/11). 22 Consequently, there is no real dispute that her nervous and hysterical atmosphere, led to exchanges between residents of the neighborhood, both as to identify harmful, both for the children affected and identify the contents of vulnerability. Different names group rose forums: During parent meetings (see the therapist's words Khalili, that during a meeting of parents held, the names of that damage came next: Benjamin, Naphtali Skippy, Ltd. 847 S. 19 and on page 848 S. 2-5) and during the meeting attorney Sdovnik (mother of S. confirmed that during the meeting mentioned the names of children affected by and let, mentioned the names of the suspects, Ltd. 918 S. 5th). Additionally, there were many exchanges of information between the mothers themselves, involving also mothers of minor children subject of the indictment., for example, said one of the residents of the neighborhood, the mother of Q "and others told me everything what was and what he [Benjamin] was doing there and how he read to children" (Exhibit F / 21 S. 33). Similarly, said a resident of another, that "I have heard from neighbors that Benjamin committed child abuse", adding, her mother of S. "told me to be careful and I told my children not to go into his house because he is not married" (Exhibit F / 20 Sat 2 -3)., she added that she was told, they had seen her son Benjamin out of his house. 23 Horror S. herself, did not contest that, she changed information with other mothers (p 942 S. 21-23). Also said that a mother gave her a list of names of children who were in Benjamin Ben-Zion, to immediately notify the parents that their children are listed (p 833 S. 3-14). She made a list of its own, which consisted of 22 suspects. In this regard, said one of the residents of the neighborhood, the mother of S. gave her three pages which are listed the places where neighborhood children performed actions, noting that handwritten amendments on the page, are additions of parents (Exhibit N / 15 Sat 10-13) . She spoke with the mother of Q on the houses in which the acts were carried out and it told her, among other things, the apartment, "the children told her that there was a man with a gun" (in 7-8). Even the mother of M. confirmed that she heard "sometimes" Contents of the vulnerability itself (p 763 S. 28th) that she told one of the mothers and the horror of that, what she told her daughter about what happened at the home of Ben-Zion (Exhibit N / 16 s 29-32). 24 on this talk, actions were also active on the residents, designed to find out what happened. Some mothers have taken their own children on a tour of the neighborhood and asked them to point out the houses in which events occurred, so when the kids are together (so, for example, said one of the residents, that pointing to a particular house, "The kids gave me filming them and there are films", R. Exhibit N / 15 Sat 9-10 S. 21-22).Similarly, many parents do not ask their children when they are together, but separately (see for example the words of a resident of the neighborhood, that suggested children write together what happened there, if it will make it easier on them, exhibit v / 33 in 7). It is noted that the defendant's counsel argued that David Ansbacher, a neighborhood activist, said residents asked him to investigate the matter himself, but in his statement to the police study shows that is not the case. Ansbacher said that he was asked to coordinate the issue in terms of contact with welfare and contacting the police (Exhibit F / 7 sec 6-16). 25 police investigators do not dispute the existence of environmental contamination in this case. Holy Solomon investigator said he could say "mouthful", which was "to some extent also the investigation of infection" (p 472 S. 11-12). He said parents were warned not to talk to each other and to talk with their children: "I asked and asked and I went back and asked the station commander and investigating officer asked everyone asked not to be call" (p 494 S. 1-3). However, considering that this is a very small area where parents know, it was clear to him that the infection can be prevented, "unless I put a cop on every person connected with the affair" (p 493 S. 22-30). Therefore, he said, "safety factors were taken very great before the arrests and investigations before entering suspects' (p 472 S. 11-13). Elsewhere, explained that due to the complexity of the case and the fear of infection, were studied children "really tweezers" and any evidence it was feared contamination "We moved the so-called aside and took the only evidence they were free of any infection" (p 550 S. 562 and S. 568-569 ). As evidence, pointed out that the 86 children studied, only credible set to 16 testimonies of about 12-15 suspects, charges were filed against three only (p 551 S. 551-555). 26 The conclusion that the case before us, there is considerable concern evidence of contamination of the neighborhood kids including four minors at the center of the indictment. That aside, it is clear that even the atmosphere and the dynamics created the whole affair shared neighborhood, then their intensity may vary with respect to any minor any specific complaint, taking into account, inter alia, schedules, and more. Defense's expert, Professor Goshen, also agreed that the question is what information is exposed to any of the minors which we are involved (p 1323 S. 9th). Therefore, considering the evidence of the four children the subject of this indictment, we examine whether and how it affected the neighborhood atmosphere each and every one of them, and detail, whether it affected their specific complaints against the accused. Researchers investigating technique children 27 As mentioned above, the framework of the defendant's defense raised fundamental argument that even if the diagnosis according to the criteria of the CBCA is effective in principle, the special circumstances that characterize the case before us - the number of injuries hit the number of children at the same time, sustained injuries, they occur in the neighborhood One, living in a gated community where there were dense and numerous calls from residents about the issue - it is not effective. Since it is the power of this diagnostic tool to clean up their version of the four minor infection is reported to distinguish real memories or false memories, Slhskfto possibility is quite high in this case. 28 Indeed, the work of scholars of children, which usually is not easy, it was very difficult and complicated affair Nachlaot, in view of its unique characteristics, as just described.However, I do not think, that because of the complexity of things, it was not possible to begin to determine finding credible versions of minors. My impression is that the professional tools which researchers used, are designed precisely to address complex situations and difficulties that grow stated them. Including rising main concern in our case because our child is about false memory. I'll explain. 29 As described in an article submitted by counsel for the accuser, there are three tools that help children investigator reliability assessment task: (a) Analysis of the quality of the interview, ie, how the information provided by the child received: Is his answers were given in response to open-ended questions that show detail and more accurate response to questions or closed. far as the interview more open and inviting, the information provided will be more authentic, rich and accurate, and consequently, the ability to evaluate higher (b) Analysis of behaviors characteristic of children injured, suspected of sexual violence and child as he testifies before a child investigator. mere appearance of those characteristics specific words The child and the fact that he describes them without it aware of their significance, can strengthen the reliability of the testimony (c) analyzing the contents of evidence according to the criteria of the CBCA, which are divided into four groups (general characteristics, specific contents, characteristics of content unique content related motives.) as taking place more criteria, the more likely the child's description was derived from direct experience events, while small possibility that the incident was invented or been concocted (see p 929-932 in our article of container and container Brightman cute, child victims of crime investigation: the role of investigator children, which was presented by " the accuser's counsel during his interrogation Dr Gottlieb). 30 shows that when a researcher approached to assess the reliability of the children, is not based solely on the criteria of the CBCA, but uses three criteria, consisting of many sub criteria. Among all these there is a relationship "reliability assessment of complex always contains elements not rely on just one component. Only weighting of each component presented will allow the researcher to formulate their children's testimony to the reliability assessment" (my emphasis - a 'c') (ibid, p 932). Also interrogation, carried out according to guide structured and systematic investigation of child crime victim, which provides various strategies for dealing with difficulties in the interrogation of a young child, including, fear confuse fantasy with reality or not based solely on his memory of the authentic and involve external sources of information (name, Ltd 920). There is nothing to weaken the defense argument about the inability to determine the reliability of this case, as we see, that the diagnosis does not rest solely on the CBCA (the defense undermined its effectiveness), but this is only one among many tools used by the researcher use.Even on the merits, I am satisfied that the power of the wide variety of them stood above characteristics, including the CBCA, leading the researchers to trace the factual truth. Are tools whose sole purpose is to distinguish copied or invented story and a true story - and that, even under conditions of heavy infection. 31 Indeed, it can be seen that although the focus of the thesis of Professor Goshen is the view that "false memories have all the characteristics of real memories" (p 1210 S. 28-29), the same breath, he also pointed out the characteristics unique, by which we know that these false memory. Thus, for example, wrote in his opinion, that "in the case of false memory, imagination must complete the details it does not recognize, and therefore impossible to reach descriptions" (p 23 exhibit v / 31). He also wrote that false memory is characterized by confusion in the stories or characters and the slow process of remembering the event (p 24 and on page 27). In fact, these are just a few of the researchers examining children. This means that even according to Professor Goshen, there are signs that indicate whether it is in real memory or false memory. Reply to Prof. Goshen When asked about it, "children have no necessary or sufficient characteristics" (p 1233 S. 10), is not convincing, than appears, that specifically in children, although you may value that does not appear in adults. For example, a description of things without knowing their meaning or knowledge of things that are not supposed to be selling them if the injury had not (as we shall see, this was the description of 'the defendant erection). 32 In this context, there is no ignoring the fact that Prof. Goshen is not involved in assessing the reliability of the children and his specialty is the general topic of creating false memories (p 1210 S. 17). Also confirmed that not all the material was relevant to him, but only those parts of the testimony mothers, presented by the defendant's counsel in his face: "Investigation of the mothers was selective, clearly I did not read all of them" (p 1309 Sat 5-6 and on page 1280 .) Similarly, Dr. Gottlieb has no previous experience on the subject of assessing the reliability of children in the criminal field (p 1145 S. 5).Although unnecessary, saying that the Supreme Court recently held, false memory doctrine has not yet received recognition in the community or school attained the status of scientific (see the words of Honour Amit oral 5582/09 Doe v State of Israel, to On 20:10:10, paragraph 125). 33 Therefore, I am convinced that the professional tools used by researchers, children can trace the factual truth, even under special circumstances such as the current circumstances of this case. Below we will discuss each of these events is the subject of the indictment. For reduced charges Wednesday 34 After carefully watching the interrogation tapes of God and heard the testimony of the investigator Hadas, I find adopting the impression of the researcher to determine that a reliable version that D told about an incident she experienced herself. This is not a false memory or copying of things she heard from others. 35 As mentioned above, D was studied at the age of eight and told the events three years earlier, when she was 5 her as documented look trustworthy and which are evident in many real signs. I found them consistent line, drawing a clear picture as to the details of the incident at the center of the indictment. She gave him a detailed description of the cosmos, which was accompanied by the details of how things happened and the circumstances leading up to the event, that Benjamin told them, "Come to my house and then I'll show you a beautiful film and then if you do not come then I'll hit you" (Exhibit A / 21, p 8 Sat 7-8 and on page 9 Sat 19 second recording for transcription). During the description, also demonstrated the exercises spontaneously children was said to perform (Exhibit A / 22, p 6 Q 32). Says that although there are regrettable, the demonstration made by D. was out of range of the camera, still, the background could be heard the description of D '... open legs open arms "and understand his intention.Additionally, accompanied by the words of D descriptions concerning her feelings in real time, that entered the home of Benjamin because the coward then us and then we got to the stairs, "that lay on the mattress for fear (Exhibit A / 21, p 8 S. 10 and S. page 22 and on page 9 S. 6 and S. 19 second recording for transcription) and also increased because 'ought to also put a white man with a ponytail is stronger "and We were afraid he would beat us" (p 11 sec 7). Another investigation added that another had Benjamin's instructions to meet him at the home of Ben-Zion, We were young then, because we believed that he was going to kill us "(Exhibit A / 22, p 4 Q 13). In general, much of the language of the body of God and her behavior during the investigation, psychological difficulty talking about things, especially when describing the sexual descriptions, then spoke in a whisper and sometimes found it difficult to express themselves. They all reinforce the conclusion, told of an incident that has experienced it. 36 further supported the reliability of the words of D. I also find that, throughout the investigations is careful to distinguish, in great detail, the share of harm. D. separation between those who took an active part (Benjamin, the man with the white ponytail, black man with a ponytail and Ben-Zion), and those who passively and watched what was happening from the (convenient, Walfish and defendant). Even when describing the actions of the active harm is consistently described, spontaneous and richly detailed the division of tasks specifically said what he did each and every one. Fact, she did so precisely during each of inquiries conducted an investigation as the second back on what she said the first investigation, largely reinforces the impression that D said that she experienced the things her imagination and her religion. If it was my imagination, it is doubtful whether it would have managed to keep the version as complex and detailed. In particular taking into account the young age and the fact that investigations were almost two weeks apart from each other, that involves increasing the probability of the emergence of contradictions and inaccuracies (the first investigation was on 8/10/11 and the other on 22.8.11). In particular, one can see that referring to part of the defendant, returned Wednesday repeatedly that, he had a minor role in the incident which is the subject of the indictment, and he just sat and looked at what was going on, not talking - not with the kids and with Benjamin (Exhibit A / 22 , Ltd. 8 S. 11-17). It was the same lineup conducted D. on 09/19/11. After being introduced to her a picture of the accused, said Wednesday that "I think Salman" ... "I'm going to, it's my cousins ​​that live there, so I see it a lot of times and he seemed quite orthodox." She was asked to tell the knowledge of the defendant, and replied, that the defendant "look at what we're doing." Asked explicitly whether the defendant did things besides look, shook her head, then said: "All we did was look at only" (Exhibit A / 24 A). 37 This is the place to say, that did not go away from me the words of D. The second her investigation, she said there, that the defendant "sat and watched and sometimes did things" (Exhibit A / 22, p 14 S. 13th). Counsel for the defendant argued that the words of D. lineup these words contradict the second in her investigation, and impair its reliability. However, I believe that the opposite is true. Since, it should be noted that immediately after said Wednesday that the defendant "did sometimes things, "she was asked by the researcher Hadas" Come tell me this time Salman has made things ". Then, return D: "Nothing, he sat and watched" (Exhibit A / 22, p 14 Q 12-15). After a brief respite, was asked Wednesday by the investigative book "Now the time you remember Salman doing things and not just sit and look at" (in 26-27), and then told of a case where the defendant projected film, told the kids take off his clothes and do As the film and threatened them that if they do so he would beat them (Exhibit A / 22, p 14, Q 28 and p 15 S. 10th). Later, after she told Wednesday that the man with the white ponytail showed the film, ordered children off your clothes and do like the movie, she said she researcher "I think you told me about it" and asked Med tell about "this time". D. replied, "It was time this here." researcher said, "this time Salman did something, come tell me what Salman did that once, "D. replied:" He looked at the film and he told us to do it ... they said it all together, except for rest, rest never did anything " (p 16 s 34 and p 17 S. 14th). 38 The conclusion that D could distinguish clearly between the various events and what made each of those who caused harm (including the defendant), every event and occasion. As to the subject of the indictment, and it was clear that the defendant did not do anything but look and that was another event, which took an active part. I believe that great importance should be attached to this distinction made by God and refraining Mltfol the defendant other acts performing at the event under discussion. She indicated an honest and balanced, be as accurate as possible, and say only the truth. She also points to a lack of desire to implicate the defendant and to incriminate him. There is thus, a significant strengthening effect because of her Wednesday about the incident, and as discussed below, the negation of the argument that the fourth defendant was affected by the introduction of other dangerous person. 39 can also be seen that when D did not remember certain details, she did not hesitate to say so. Thus, for example, could not remember who took off her clothes and did not remember to note the names of all the children who were present situation, adding, "Even at home I tried and I could not remember" (Exhibit A / 21, p 13 Sat 1-16 second tape transcription) . When asked about the situation of the synagogue finger, she said, that she does not remember whether she also introduced "back", saying: "I do not remember it was three years ago" (Exhibit F / 21, p 13 S. 11th first tape). Similarly, said Wednesday that the recall does not describe the look of a comfortable and Walfish, and on the other hand, has added its own initiative, that the "Zalman I know" (Exhibit A / 21, p 18 S. 14-22 S. 31-33) . Note that even her investigation II, said Wednesday that she does not know if you spot the comfortable, Walfish and the man with the ponytail white (as opposed to Ben Zion and Benjamin), and added here on its own initiative, that will identify the defendant (Exhibit A / 22, p 18 Q 29-30). I find that this conduct of D also indicates its desire to describe what happened accurately and avoid Mlhfriz or unsafe facts described Van.hia enhances the credibility of the things that matters not raised Wednesday doubt her testimony. 40 Moreover, this conduct has to dispel the fear of the passage of time in excess of three years, between the alleged incident (at age five) and interrogation (when she was eight and a half), that D invented details to complete the picture and serving the researcher. It should be noted here that although seven 27 opinion argued Professor Goshen's attempt Wednesday to remember the names of the children who were present at the home situation is indicative of the process of creating a false memory, then the interrogation by the Advocacy, agreed that there is nothing wrong in an attempt to recover the incident (p 1321 S. 10). might add that, blvd researcher did not hide the things she heard from those around her. researcher she said that her cousin told her that the man with the white ponytail disguised so no one would recognize him and that her uncle (her father's her cousin), he said, that the defendant was free (Exhibit A / 22, p 18, Q 23). elsewhere, even on its own initiative researcher said, giving birth to the neighborhood told her the things she said researcher (Exhibit A / 22, p 4 S. 22-28.) To me, this adds sincerity and reinforces the credibility., and this is also my impression statement of Wednesday, when asked how many people attended the event: "There must be ten people ... not ten, maybe five do not know how" ( My emphasis - a 'c') (Exhibit A / 21, p 12 Sat 1-3 second tape transcription). Professor Goshen claimed that this statement indicates a memory-building process, but I think that the fact, that in the end said Wednesday frankly, she can not remember, and that reinforces the reliability of information provided only it was safe. I will add that I found no words, that the number 10 is "beyond our pick" (p 1320 S. 14-19 and on page 27 of his opinion). 41 It is important to say that the words of D were also statements on actions, the likelihood of that actually occurred, her face looks low. Thus, referring to an event that was in Ben-Zion (not an indictment of the event), said Wednesday that Ben Zion ordered children to download their clothes when they were in the yard (Exhibit A / 21, p 10 Q 26-33). About the person with the "white ponytail," she said, because it "turns on the street without clothes ... it goes with such short shorts and then have him as such a short vest" (Exhibit A / 21, p 15 Q 18-22). Also there are words for another event, contact Ben Zion where the kids rope before putting them in the house and is "already in the yard took his clothes" (Exhibit A / 22, p 21 Q 18-21). Elsewhere, she said, because the children themselves put my finger their intimate parts (Exhibit A / 21, p 13 S. 21-25 second recording for transcription) and said that "there were also ten people I can not remember who they are, they jumped on the girl "(Exhibit A / 22, p 23 Q 20-23). Finally, there are the words of D on the case in which they ordered the man with a ponytail black cats lick and kiss (Exhibit A / 21, p 24 Sat 7-8 first recording for transcription). 42 But, still, I did not find these problems testimony of D. To change the conclusion regarding the reliability. As we know, when we are dealing with the evidence of a sex crime victims, especially victims of tender years, happens often, they suffer from confusion, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. These are due to their nature of traumatic events and the difficulty of the victims to tell their story and to reconstruct the events experienced, recovery which itself is a trauma Mohdst. Therefore, once established, that should not be automatically debited to the victims of such conflicts or lack of coherence were found in their testimony, but the question to ask is, 'If all that makes it difficult is reliable, and if the hard core of the events and the overall picture obtained from her testimony and reinforcements allow a conclusion regarding the defendant's guilt beyond doubt "(words of honor Strasberg Nur 993/00 oral Cohen v State of Israel, given on 09/04/02, paragraph 28). 43 In our case, I was not impressed, the problematic points listed above, as well as slightly inaccurate were the words of D, down to the root of the matter and damage the core substantive - about which D and back consistently over the two investigations - and basing the mask of the incident which is the subject of the indictment. First, note that the same information is not realistic delivered Wednesday, do not even touch the event that is the subject of the indictment or the defendant himself, but other events and other offenders. This means that clear and consistent picture presented Wednesday - about how the event occurs, in part attributable to the defendant and the defendant at the same event - maintained. All speculations arose, were not made in connection with the incident at issue. 44 Furthermore, even the bodies of the unreal information provided by D, then I find that they get right down to the credibility of the testimony and harm its neighbors. Given the young age of D. situation uneasy for her, it was necessary to talk about hidden in her she came and describe descriptive sex are very distant from the world, it is natural, that would be some confusion in the details and the chronological order in which the events happened (in our case, words have the fourth regarding reduction of the yard and house clothes). However, how much, where testimony is given away during the event itself (three years in the case of D) and in the case of a large number of events. Taking into account all these, I found the same problem statements, the individual has to say, to raise concerns, his version of the D version is not true. Are negligible with respect to the line coherent, logical and consistent when it comes to an event presented by the defendant attributable describes an entire story. Therefore, believing her best impression of D - remains. 45 As noted, the focus of the client's defense on the claim that D was affected by hearing other specifications and as a result, can not be contaminated testimony to determine her reliability. Indeed, one can see that D itself said in its investigations, she talked about it with others. In his first (on 10/08/11), When asked by the researcher to describe the appearance of the defendant, said Wednesday: "It would seem orthodox but he ... is freedom." Therefore, she was asked how she knew that the defendant was free, and return "Father of my cousin said," (Exhibit A / 21, p 18 S. 24-29 second recording for transcription). Immediately thereafter, she was asked how she knew the name of Walfish but does not know how to describe the appearance, then said: "They told me that." Wednesday was asked who told her this, and how she knows the name of Noah, and replied: "Both Joe told me ... that she can remember ... I remember them though ... but I I do not know how they look "(my emphasis - a 'c') (p 19 Sat 1-8). 46 during the second interrogation, held on 22.8.11, came the words of D, that is talking with others. Fourth, the researcher said that the meeting place was at Benjamin's home of a cousin and then, on its own initiative researcher said: "(name not clear) was here, she told you?", Adding: "She told me so" (Exhibit A / 22, p 4 Q 22-28). In the same session, said Wednesday that it is not sure that you identify the man with the white ponytail, because "he did not want to get caught so he made a ponytail all the time ... he was always wearing a tank top wearing long now. Disguised it for other things like that recognize it "(my emphasis - a 'c') (Exhibit A / 22, p 18 Q 14-17). The researcher asked Wednesday how she knows this, and D. replied, "Joe told me and J. sees it" (in 23). 47 In addition to all these, there are the words of the mother of the fourth, when she learned that her sister that her children were injured, she panicked and took the three of them together on a tour of the neighborhood: "I thought if I walk around the neighborhood, I hear them maybe things where some houses were were, what was, but said nothing "(p 285 S. 19-20). Is confirmed that the tour was at the house of Benjamin Ben-Zion, but argued that does not remember "who just told me their names 'and' How I knew where these houses, who showed me ... maybe my sister, or my sister's children, or someone from the street "(p 296 S. 26-28). She said, "Then I tried to ask them at home," but the kids still did not tell anything and she was "sure there's no mistake about it, my kids are not related to each other" (p 285 S. 19-22). However, over time, began Wednesday to talk about happened, compared to the other two children, of whom "did not take out anything."Wednesday, telling her things gradually "D. I started to say things they told me were not nice if there was there? Initially said she was not there, after a few days because she was there ... she mentioned the two houses were mostly". Private events also told her Wednesday gradually. At first, she said, raised her shirt and told a few days later, that the skirt. Later, she said, they took off her clothes and told the Knesset finger on Hscbtm force and lying to them. Horror of D added that initially refused Wednesday to go to the researcher and therefore told her that if they do go to court and they settled offenders in prison, and you'll be a great privilege and orders that other kids do. " D is still afraid and said to her, I took them to jail. " This "gave her the courage to" D. agreed to go to the researcher (p 288 S. 7-21). 48 Having considered carefully all the things, I am satisfied that the infection in the case of D is strongly diminishes the reliability of her account with respect to the defendant and the incident subject of the indictment. I am confident that these discussions and exchanges, did not lead her to tell the events that she experienced herself, did not exaggerate about the part of the defendant. 49 For, as I outlined above, throughout her testimony Wednesday, for its part, showed no tendency to criminalize any defendant or complicate the acts he did not commit. She came back and allowed him a minor role and made it clear that the event in question is just looking at what was happening. This means that even if exposed Wed various statements regarding the dangerousness of the defendant, and being a negative person - then they did not affect her. She did not ask for treatment for libel defendant. Professor Goshen Reload this matter, because the infection can grow with each child in a different way - one will place the defendant center of the story and then a marginal role (p 1253 S. 6-20). However, in my opinion, if the infection had to be at work and influences on Wednesday, she was presenting things differently. She was not asking to be precise and clear, that the incident at issue, the defendant only look at what is happening. Beyond that, it is not clear whether the exposed D. statements regarding the dangerousness of the defendant or, as his being a "monster". Remarks show that but was told by the uncle, the defendant freedom - and no more., I believe, that the effect of this statement was fairly minor, though negligible, and I find much point in explaining the researcher Hadas, that "to protect the image of the sector Then tell them their freedom it ... I did not feel that this is something that affects their level pollutant "(p 444 S. 12-16). relevant are also white nurse's words Khalili, made a similar context, that many children did say harms himself righteous man and he does not really Orthodox, in order to make their internal and explain to themselves how someone who is visibly an older orthodox, do such acts (Ltd 877 S. 13-25). 50 Another indication of my high opinion that D was not influenced by others without telling the events that she experienced herself, I find both in a consistent and detailed provided. This version has been copied (from her cousin, or from any other girl) invented or imagined version, likely, was confused in light of the many questions asked. I greatly doubt whether she manages to keep it consistent and coherent line introduced, which kept the division of roles between that harm and described a complete picture of the entire event, including the circumstances that preceded it. According to the researchers Hadas, "she recited some something, she could not every time I turn to her with questions to expand as it has expanded" (p 444 S. 7-21). Beyond that, there is no direct evidence, that the talks between the fourth cousin had told their calls which events they experienced. Words of D indicates that they only touch identify harmful. To me, so natural too, and the kids will not go into great detail of their own vulnerability. As noted by the therapist brick Khalili, children handled avoided talking about things with each other, because "children do not like to talk about these things, children very avoid this, children feel it is very good, and very much their own way is really to do what he kind of repression and live as if it never happened "(p 891 S. 6-9). 51 It should be noted that in the case of D, the possibility that she was influenced by the general atmosphere and exposed the many conversations and rumors running around the neighborhood - is relatively low. For d 'is not a resident of Nachlaot, but she lives in a different neighborhood. Its connection to the neighborhood was that, her grandparents and uncles lived there from her mother. For many years, used Wednesday to visit the neighborhood almost every day, for several hours, along with her two brothers and her mother who took care of her parents. However, In May 2010, the grandfather died, and since then have made visits to the d'neighborhood much less frequent (Note that the grandmother grandfather died about a year ago). In this matter, there was controversy as much fewer visits them. Horror of D argued that since the death of his grandfather visited D. neighborhood once every six months, provided that D and her cousin met "twice a year for two years and a half" (p 291 S. 10-11). Counsel for the defendant, for its part, agrees that fewer visits since the death of his grandfather, but argued that the scope and certainly not the mother described., She asked to rely on that, blvd talking about the review in the present tense and past tense, and said about defendant, that "I see it a lot of times when I go to them" (Exhibit A / 24 A). 52 As for me, I think, that this is a mere terminology of D, which is due to her young age of Wednesday. In any case, the most important is that there is no dispute that the visits of D. neighborhood significantly diminished after the death of his grandfather - a few months before even the first complaint was filed over a year ago and learned about the extent of provision: As stated, the police investigation began on 11:10:11, then investigated suspected minor damage to one point by one person (Benjamin Sichuan). Sichuan 22:10:10 arrested and released on house arrest on 19:12:10. Only half a year later, in June-July, 2011, began to rise more offensive names then began to wave second investigation and found out the extent of provision (see the words of researcher friends Ltd. 549 S. 561-562). Sichuan arrested on 07.31.11 again, arrested on 03/08/11 Ben Zion and the defendant was arrested on 9/15/11. stated, on 03/08/11 her mother learned of Fourth sister, to the possibility that her children were hurt (Exhibit F / 1 Sat 3-5 and on page 285 S. 17-18). Certainly, from this moment,'s visits declined Wednesday to the neighborhood, if ever there were any. For it makes no sense, because the mother of D will with the neighborhood kids in there are reports constant on sexual abuse of children, even her kids. means is that at the height of the storm in the neighborhood, was Wednesday distant physically and socially from what is happening in the neighborhood and hence its exposure to a Direct general infection was fairly minor. 53 which is conducted tour of the four brothers together with the other, I did not find that it affected the D when it comes to actions attributed to the defendant. For the tour was conceived after the mother's sister told her that she heard, that her children were in homes in the neighborhood and she turned it houses the Benjamin Ben-Zion (p 297 S. 9-10). Accordingly, the tour took place at their homes in order to find out whether any children were spoken in those two houses. This means that the possibility of this tour's brain implant D. any negative thought about the accused or put him in those two houses - is low. Even the second stage of investigating Wednesday at her home by her mother, I was not impressed, that occurred during the defendant's name - not by the mother and not by D itself. Conclusion I reach is based on the mother's complaint to the police, which The names of harming many of them told her D. (Ben-Zion, ponytailed man White man with ponytail black and Benjamin) and specified the acts committed, but did not mention the name of the defendant (see Exhibit F / 1). clear, if she hears the name of the defendant's mouth D - It was reported that the police. 54 Moreover, taking into account the marginal and passive role of the defendant events that took place, I think, that makes sense, in pre Investigation are investigating the children, not the defendant's name was raised - not by the aunt and by Wednesday.Naturally, at this stage the talks focused on the main characters and actions made active, and the margins of the story (at least in the case of D). Indeed, one can see that at this point the name could not convenient Walfish, who also had only looked on passively.Consequently, it should be noted that the announcement of whether the police was given on 8.8.11 and two days later he was questioned Wednesday by investigating children first (on 10/08/11), then reminded the defendant. Has a tight schedule it to reduce the mentioned the possibility of the accused during those two days. 55 as to how it had been questioned Wednesday by her mother, I was not impressed, as argued by the defense, that is put pressure on Wednesday as a result, said Wednesday things to please the environment - not the mother, not the researcher., As specified, D is not hesitate to say she can not remember some details clearly throughout the interrogation desire to tell just what she remembers for sure. fact, ave not told about the vulnerability first time asked about it, she does not teach the application of pressure at all. difficulty built is of Victims of Crimes Gender tell about what happened to them, and a common phenomenon is that the victims of these open their hearts until later. these things are true about the victims of adults and more so when the victim of the offense is minor, such as D. regarding it also does not ignore the affiliation of D. Haredi sector , which increases the difficulty in nature, to talk about sexual issues. therefore, even if the attempted terror of Wednesday to talk to her daughter speak, then it is of a natural and obvious, designed to help the four to overcome the barrier of fear and shame. Moreover, according to the mother, that D told her about the vulnerability gradually, show that she did not put pressure on D. On the contrary, enabled her to talk about things at her own pace. similar conclusion I reach for persuasion D researcher kids go through the statements "will have the right Big and commanding that other kids do "and" took them to jail. " These statements are intended to dispel the fear of D. unfamiliar situation, it must open its heart to a stranger, as well as the fears of revenge by damaging. As her mother said, that "gave her the courage" (p 288 S. 7-21). And no more. I will add that I was also impressed, her mother's D asked her general questions only, is present in certain houses ("LED" I started to say things they told me they were fine if there was not there? ") And damage to the contents of the entry itself. 56 Given all these, I find that the fear of infection testimony Wednesday or copying from others, is extremely low. My impressions, have added to the impression of investigating children Hadas, that "there was contamination is not at the level that affects the reliability" (p 440 S. 23). As is known, a researcher's impression from the testimony of the minor children is "admissible evidence - not one central vision - and the evidence used to formulate a conclusion about the reliability of the testimony" (see remarks Honour E. Rivlin oral 446/02 State of Israel vs. Kobe, can On 29/7/02, paragraph 7). matter, the defendant's counsel raised a variety of arguments against the professionalism of the researcher, the center was the claim, the investigator did not properly clarified the scope and nature of the infection in the case of D. She complained of the way, the researcher did not ask the D "obvious questions" about the content of her conversations with various polluting factors (for example, asked her what the mother is talking to Joe about the vulnerability itself, what he asked her uncle; Who are all the people with whom she spoke the provision) (p 443 S. 16th). 57 However, I accept the explanation provided by the researcher Hadas, because it filters out contamination by the very "girl's content itself ... I know if she invented, I know if she recites" (p 440 S. 22-30) and the case of D. "I recognized enough criteria", which is the meaning of fulfillment, S"hzyahum that he was not at this level affected the reliability assessment "(p 462 S. 3-6). Beyond that, I am sure, that the infection was investigated by researcher and effect until the end of the deprived. She repeated it, the researchers were "very, very alert and aware of" evidence contamination issue and they were aware that the families in the neighborhood were talking to each other about it, mothers talked with their children and the children talked among themselves. So, so she says, would "caution" and rejected due to the infection more than 70% of investigations of children (p 342 S. 27 and on page 318 S. 25-31). Researcher's caution indication can be found in the fact that it did not accept the things delivered Wednesday overwhelmingly so, for instance, not credible set's statement Wednesday that adults put a finger to the penis of one of the children.There is nothing to teach, that the researcher examined the evidence carefully. 58 Counsel for the defendant further argued that the researcher Hadas said the fourth leading questions and put things in her mouth. She claimed that the defendant's name came first from the mouth of the researcher and then, mentioned Wednesday as one of the accused involved. Indeed, an examination of transcribing record prima facie, that the researcher is to specify the name of the defendant. way, referring to the incident which is the subject of the indictment, aimed to gauge 'to describe who was with Benjamin, except the man with a ponytail White D. replied: "It's convenient, Walfish" (p 11 S. 22)., she said, that only the man with the white ponytail was at home with Benjamin Ben-Zion and the remainder "stayed home." So, the investigator told her: "So you said you were home? ... Salman, comfortable, Walfish and who else? There were other people "(my emphasis - a 'c') (Exhibit A / 21, p 11 S. 34th transcription cassette II and after 26 minutes the tape itself). However, viewing and listening carefully to the tape itself shows clearly, that the words of the researcher, D. "said the defendant's name on its own initiative, earlier., when asked to wed by the researcher to talk about" Anyone with Benjamin "saying her" man with a ponytail and white ", continued Wednesday and said" and Zalman, and comfortable, Walfish " (see 25 minutes into the tape itself). Indeed, the defendant's name was not recorded in transcribing and instead recorded "and ..." but after listening to myself she said of Wednesday, no doubt, that said the name "Salman". GSS is hard to believe the defendant did not listen to the tape. Anyway, listening to her clearly shows that D had volunteered the name Zalman (defendant) so there was no room for treatment false claims against the researcher Hadas this matter. 59 In addition, I concur myrtle researcher's words, that is recorded in real time for herself in her draft pages that Wednesday said the name of the accused: "When the investigation, certainly, word for word" (p 451 S. 14 and on page 470 that 17 and S. 20). Researcher, specifically applies even turned 11 Sat 23-page draft (p 450 S. 11-30). Hence, there is no basis for the defendant's counsel contends that the researcher "volunteered" to D. The defendant's name and she puts it in connection with a similar argument raised her exploration of that issue: "I'll certainly not anything like her, I have no interest in blame anyone If I then put the Zalman Why not someone else? "(p 399 S. 10-13). matter, there is also a note that further investigation, the question of what Benjamin and the other adults did during exercise, female D on its own initiative Defendant's name: "Everyone trained us ... it was white ponytail and Benjamin and ..., Salman (not clear)" (p 14 Sat 33 to p 15 S. 1). 60 says, that I had lost the researcher's question Wednesday whether the defendant's dome was black (instead of asking what color the cupola) (Exhibit A / 21, p 18 Sat 1, 4-22).I am also aware that According to researcher D. During its investigation, that D can ask another girl what she told the investigator (Exhibit A / 22, p 4 Sat 1-29). I agree, that is fundamentally flawed and in fact these statements researcher Hadas also did not dispute that, "She lives in its sector and it was clear that it means a black cap, but the comment I get a full-blown" (p 453 S. 7-9) . However, side by side, I found that those statements affect the authenticity of the things provided by the D, and I can not find attribute their weight, to note, that before she was asked Wednesday whether the dome black, she said, on its own initiative, "Salman has had such a beautiful men ... ... like my father. " Even good impression of professionalism researcher Hadas is not affected by any of this. Apart from these two points, the investigation was conducted properly, in accordance with the guidelines in the investigation of children and open questioning format. At all, says the researcher Hadas impressed. 61 As is well known, Article 11 of the Rules of Evidence Amendment (Protection of Children), 1955 provides that no person be convicted based on the evidence collected to the researcher boy children, but if she was the kind of extra visual aid. Appearances aid meet three conditions Highlights: first, that the source independent from evidence requires corroboration. second, because it is complicated, or at least tend to implicate the defendant in the execution of the offense, and third, that it touches the point real disputed between the parties. seeing aid may consist of a cluster of evidence three seasons with these requirements as probative weight may vary depending on the nature and weight of the main evidence requires corroboration (see review by Honorable Judge E. Levy oral Doe v State of Israel, was given on 13.5.09, paragraph 13). Subsequently, it was determined in a long line of decisions, that "first and foremost, is used to aid the testimony of mental condition pressing the complainant. Established rule is that the mental state of the victim shortly after the commission of the offense committed in, or when he is required to refer to the event-related fact and re-raise the consciousness The traumatic event can be used as objective evidence of who was to help the testimony "(the words of the Honorable Judge D. Barak-Erez oral 5149/12 Doe v State of Israel, given on 01/13/14, paragraph 82). 62 In our case, there's mental condition Wednesday after the discovery of the acts, as indicated by the words of the mother, because it holds that assistance. Is said, that "in the early years was her flower girl", but since the exposure of Deeds "is received Rampage abnormal": "Since the exposure of her life are about this matter, anywhere is safe, although it fancies that do not talk about it all the time, She sure talked about it, she was sure that I told the director of the circles and the guide and teacher "(p 287 S. 2nd and S. 10-13). In particular, the mother said that when she spoke with her attorney before the trial testimony of Ben-Zion, began Wednesday on a rampage and slammed the phone. She added that at least once every other Wednesday raging like 'that I talk to all kinds of people on the phone, and she was sure her talking about yelling and crying and raging and rolling on the floor "(p 287 S. 16-21). Beyond outbursts of rage Wednesday, the mother said that D Roya "terrible fear, clinging to me all the time ... she lives in fear of being lynched." D, is not ready to be alone: ​​"The main thing is this terrible fear walking down the street alone, have to worry about her escort to any place and at home when starts to get dark, not too moves from room to room alone ... she was trying not to go to the bathroom or screaming in the night to take her to the bathroom, She lives in fear "(p 286 S. 2-9). The mother added that D mentions the name of the defendant in situations that are frightening to her: "Every time I ask to be alone or exceed floor, immediately I hear the name Salman all the time, and the name of Weisfish and comfortable, Binyamin Ben-Zion I remember than that given to their house "(in" 21-23) ... "There is no chance that this is not to scare people mention the name Zalman" (p 288 S. 23-29). 63 The defendant's counsel referred to this, in his trial of Ben-Zion (On 09/03/12, see Exhibit N / 2), did not say whether that D is afraid to be alone and that she mentions the names of harm frightening situations, including the name of the defendant. Did she explained that she did not find it necessary to say, Ave mentions the name of the defendant, as in the case of Ben Zion "I knew what it was, so I did not have to say that I heard the name of Ben Zion girl, but I'm not in Salman You know what he did, then I still have to say that I heard the name Zalman girl, but did not tell me what he did "(p 294 S. 8-10). doubt that, whether this explanation satisfactory. Yet, still, I think, that the most important is the evidence in the trial of Ben-Zion, where they were asked to tell "about the state of the fourth day," and then began to say: "Gd will help her ... we did not know this girl. She was born a good girl and nice and pleasant, and today we see that in both situations ... or is it the most disturbed world beats and riot and disturbing, or is crying, without end "(Exhibit N / 2, p 307). Request of the prosecutor, said the phone call held her the day before the testimony, it was forced to stop because Blvd, a wild and cry "What I talk about it and to whom I tell it and why I again mention it," he noted, that "when I talk about other things she imagines" talk about it . following these things, ask your attorney has questions whether other issues. 64 Counsel for the defendant further is turned According to testimony at the trial of Ben-Zion, that as she spoke with Wednesday found a spot of blood on her underwear and asked D Does anyone touched her, D. "plain spoken" (D. said no that .) However, it should be noted, that immediately afterwards, said the mother, the child's normal 'things' that point in time, including the last four years, is a state of crying outbursts: "There is hardly a day that she did not cry." Therefore, explained, that might have been the four outbreak of tears that day, but it "was not anything more than the standard that day" (Exhibit N / 2, p 311). 65 Therefore, I declare, that her emotional state of D - both during the event and after the exposure, an aid version. In addition, I find her version as practiced assistance of three other minors, who gave evidence of similar acts of the defendant. These are the additional evidence required for such assistance (external evidence, the defendant complication is The disagreement). Says the rule is, you can make use of to an investigator minor children, which in itself requires assistance, such further aid given by other minor (eg oral 854/05 Doe v State of Israel, given on 03/30/05, paragraph 10.) as seen along the verdict, I found versions of the most reliable four children and have no fear of false accusation or evidence of infection or Lhatkn. therefore, there is no reason they will be assistance to each other. 66 To sum up this charge, I determine that the version of D trusted me and that she found evidence that aid them to prove that the defendant actually committed the act attributed to him. Charges for minor Y. 67 After watching the tapes of his interrogation, I was impressed, as a researcher of children, that the testimony of the 'most trusted and which he described the farm. All investigations were characterized by numerous real signs and words of the researcher, I concur, that "there is almost no criterion exists that is reflected in the testimony of the child" (p 254 S. 12th). 68 J, when he was interrogated for 10 years. In his testimony, said the two events at the heart of the indictment in a flowing and coherent. He began to describe the events of his own accord, without being asked specific questions and story what happened, it was a complete and detailed story. As a whole, also referred to the circumstances leading up to events and how tempted to enter the homes of harm (home of Ben-Zion and draw event of the defendant's home event Pinch). All descriptions, specific details were rich. He often described the dynamic between him and the defendant often combined in the demos.Thus, he described how the lottery was a minister, and repeated it, who hurt his team the couples saying "stop". J even said spontaneously much, that after the distribution of the couple, told them to Ben-Zion into the room on the left, but "Lord, do not know what exactly is left-right, so I went first, and she later went" (Exhibit A / 25, p 10 s 'first recording for transcription 13-14). Referring to the situation in which he lay minister, said: "She could not talk ... I do not. Why because I was lying on my stomach just like my breathing was stronger than that" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 12 Sat 26 29). J even added that when he got up from the bed he "could not see straight," because "my eyes were for a long time ..." (p 13 Q 31-31). He also described that when dressed in the room after the defendant got out, "Lord, began to tell me what is the right word and opened the door." So, straight paused Minister and the defendant said, "You were lucky" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 15 Q 17-25). Exactly the same words, repeated later in his testimony. Commenting on the final event, said I. very spontaneous, "not even looked at him. Honest we ran away" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 13 s 34 second recording for transcription). These descriptions found 69 great authentic denying invention of things. Such statements, are statements, but it is hard to be said by someone who has experienced their own events. In addition, the fact that the description of the 'events were highly complex and filled with unique details, also denies the possibility, are figments of his imagination, or this copy of the events, they heard from others. I agree with the investigator when, but it was an event invented, reasonable, Shay was building a pattern he can remember and come back to it (p 61 Q 27-30). In addition, various descriptions innocent, natural and spontaneous of Y.. Thus, he said, that the defendant told him to touch "makes" the Minister "and has" his doing. " Question, what is meant, he said, "Where do services there" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 12 s 22 second recording for transcription). Was particularly prominent penis erection description of the defendant, so when asked what happened executioners "of the defendant when he touched it. J said that "it gets hard," and his hand fish "are muscles, so an inflatable hand" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 17 s 21 third tape transcription). Following this, demonstrated how his penis touched the defendant (moved his finger up and down) and said, "I'm sure he meant more" (p 11 S. 33-34 and on page 12 S. 9-17). Innocent language in describing something he did not understand the meaning soft because of his age, is a strong indication of the reliability of his words, that describes something that he saw and felt himself. In this context, it should be remembered that J belongs to the ultra-Orthodox community, which is implicit in the sexual issue. Has thereby reducing the possibility of being exposed to all these different place. 70 Yes, I see the importance in it, Shi 'a lot to describe the feelings and thoughts in real time. About the incident with the minister, again addressed the dimension of time and described, while the top layer that "I felt that I wanted to go for a long time" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 5 sec 17-18 first recording for transcription). Also often described feelings of fear and the different ways in which threatened them with the defendant (because there are cameras and hear what they're talking about and that the defendant shouted at him, "and I was afraid he would not do us something so right I took" the clothes, exhibit A / 1 A p 5 sec 26 29 and Exhibit A / 2 A, p 11 S. 7-12). Note especially the authentic says that at the defendant's statement, that the children told their parents about the killing took place, "I kept thinking who is killed, it can not be, it can be" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 6 Q 5 The first tape transcription 6). For the second event of touching his penis of the accused, told J that the defendant was not happy with the pace he touched his penis ("I'm sure he meant more"), the defendant looked at him look scary. Saying this, said I. "He looked at me like that" and opened his eyes (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 12 S. Third tape transcription 20-28). To me, all these statements about feelings and thoughts, as well as the many descriptions about the dynamics between him and the defendant, are statements, the possibility to be said, not from personal experience, is very poor. And fit are here Khalili therapist's words, that "there is a difference between the way in which the boy tells of an experience he had heard, and the way in which the boy tells of an experience that is experiencing ... a great many things, body language, expressions which he uses" (p 900 S. 3-14). 71 might add that, throughout the investigations (seven in all) was the "consistent in his words and repeated them in descriptions of complex, open and testimony of spontaneous speech. However, despite his young age and despite the time elapsed between the investigations. For our purposes, we can see that in his interrogation II (on 18.8.11) returned to the 'the same things he started the first investigation (on 11.8.11) about the draw event with the Minister, and the case in which the defendant pinched penis. I. Draw a repeated description of the situation in the room and with the Minister, in which layer it with one touch the other's penis. He also repeated the description of the feeling that stayed there for long. For the second event, he repeated that the defendant slapped him after he refused to take off his clothes, that he tried to escape from the defendant after he tweaked his penis and then the defendant grabbed him with both hands. Two investigations, while descriptions of things, the fish, on its own initiative, how the defendant slapped him and grabbed him how. I agree with the investigator when, but it was an event that was invented, it was not the 'can not save the initial version so accurately (p 60 Q 15-22). I should add that apart from the return on the description of the events themselves accurately, Y. also repeated multiple times on the date of occurrence of two events in which we are dealing with: the event raffle with the Minister, took place about a year and a half before his interrogation and that the incident in which pinched accused his penis, occurred several weeks before the survey (see also the comments of whether Ltd. 758 S. 18-20, the beginning of the month of Av (August) told her I. This injury occurred and that is about five weeks earlier). 72 directly below it, one can see that J was careful to distinguish between the events, the damage and the identity of the acts committed by each and every one of them. No trend was evident in his speech incrimination and did not try to exaggerate the charges. Pinch in the case, said that during the defendant slapped him only once (Exhibit A / 2 A p 6 S. Third tape transcription 18-22) and that he did not see other adults in the house of the accused at the time of the incident, although both his brother told him, they were at the same time with the man with the black ponytail (p 11 Q 27-28). When told about the incident that took place at the home of Skippy, he said, that the defendant was present in but did nothing (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 9 S 8 transcription fourth recording). In addition, where no trace of Y. specific details, he did not hesitate to say so. For example, when asked to specify the names of the older lottery event, said I. "I do not know all the names" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 4 Q 9 first tape transcription). Like, could not remember the names of all the girls who attended the event and said about the child "with straight hair", was not sure he was present at the event (p 4 Q 16). All these weaken the possibility, Y. exchanged between the harm or confused between the various events. 73 Moreover, there were places where fixed Y. and investigator corrected himself on his own initiative. Thus, in his first, when I told the investigator, because they talk about the first story it told him (Minister lottery story) and "You told me you'd gone after living in the neighborhood. Bridge up", corrected J., saying: "I did not go to ., but I went to the White Zion "(Exhibit A / 1 A, p 6 S. Transcription first 27-32). In addition, in his second, then spoke about the incident Pinch, added the 'his own initiative, forgot to mention, that what he described was not the presence of other children, who were asked to leave the room after the spread (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 3 Q 19 21 The third tape transcription). This behavior indicates his desire to be as accurate as possible and builds the impression that what had happened but said, no more. In this context, the words of the 'the sources of his information (the name of the man on the bridge, he learned that his friend D. and heard things from his brother) also testify about his desire not to hide anything researcher and strengthen the impression that, on the reliability of the testimony. 74 states that have not gone off the words of J, when asked to describe the appearance of the genitals minister, described the appearance of so phallic: "long ... just like any other person. ... It seems like a long beginning and then this ... uh ... everything small "(Exhibit A / 2 A, p 13 S. 10-14 second recording transcription and after 35 minutes the tape itself). In light of this, when the investigator wrote that he does not have the tools to determine the reliability of touch regarding the operation of the 'minister's genitals. But, of course, the final decision regarding the credibility of the evidence to which the court and is not bound to being impressed by a researcher of children, even when the child is not a sign: "Of course, the final conclusion about the reliability of the words of the child is the world's court, and the determination of the researcher youth is but evidence Among the evidence the judge may consider them and rely on them, as other evidence "(the words of the Honorable Justice M. Shamgar Crim 3750/94 Doe v State of Israel, given on 08/10/94, paragraph 5.) In our case, the testimony of I. researcher to children was recorded using a video camera, which allows a direct impression and direct testimony. 75 viewing the visual documentation of the investigation section, leads me to conclude unequivocally that there is no specific description of the 'the minister's genitals, to impact on the credibility of the testimony about the nature of the act of touching the genitals of one second. The process of uploading the details, Hdgmotio, body movements and facial expressions, and establish invention negate the impression, describing things he saw and felt. You could see clearly the discomfort and embarrassment with which the subject was, when asked to describe the Minister's genitals, and in particular, the situation of touching genitals. He shifted uncomfortably in his chair, long silent, spoke softly and made a face. It was obvious that he wants to change the subject and talk about it embarrassed him very much. At some point, even the topic of conversation veered other content, and said that had to change the tape in the camera, as if he wanted to end the conversation or at least gain a break from it. As well as demonstrated how the genitals touched Minister, was the 'very shy fish so quick touch with two fingers (after 34 minutes). 76 I got the impression, that the difficulty of the 'talk about it, that led him to be confused and to describe male genitalia. In this context, there are also view the course description, and note that the description of the male organ penis, was a "stumble" one time. Initially, when asked J to describe the "doer" of the minister, he replied, "What's it called ... where do services up front." So, he was asked how the "doer" of the minister, describing male genitalia, as described above. Then, asked if the Minister is a "son or daughter" and said "Daughter" and then asked to describe again the Benevolent "the Minister" and said, "What's it called ... the front. Like any man" (see 34 minutes in 36 tape). Even following his interrogation, there was a lot of talk about the embarrassment's genitals Minister.Accordance with, and similar to the previous interrogation, when asked to describe the "doer" of the minister, he said: "normal, like any human. Nothing special" (Exhibit A / 3 A, Ltd. 10 sec 4). Then asked specifically whether there is a difference between "doing" to pay girls for boys, and he replied in the affirmative: "Boys do ... cut their alliance, build it like they are born" (in "7-11). Thus, despite the description of 'the minister's genitals, the male organ, I get the version of the mutual touching their genitals - as gospel. 77 As I add the words of J, that while the defendant had touched his penis two, that this is not an impossible situation, as indicated by the authentic words and demo. Thus, when asked how the defendant punched him, if he is taller than him, said I. "What's the problem? ... With your hands you can, you can even get this far," and demonstrated this (exhibit A / 2 A, p 16 16-17 cassette for transcription 42 minutes into the third and then on to the tape itself). In addition, I was impressed that the compliance of the 'interview room near the closet and vote on the height of 1.90 meters, was an attempt to illustrate the height difference between him and the defendant did not indicate the height of the defendant (see 44 minutes into the tape). Indeed, when the researcher said, because it shows him 1.90 meters, responded I. "It can not be six feet tall. Ninety feet in this very high" (in "25-32), in accordance with previously said, that the defendant is low, but still higher than (in "2-6). 78 The defendant argued that the description of 'the apartment was not accurate and that he reported on the shelf that does not exist, and described the apartment one floor (instead of two floors) and an additional room. So too, did not describe the 'the old library over the defendant's living room wall and the many rabbis pictures hanging on the walls.Counsel for the defendant further directed that, none of the children also talked about the lack of order and debris from the home of the accused. Yet, to me, all this does not detract from the nuclear story, about the nature of the event. Come back and I will mention, we are dealing with a child, 9-10 years old When performing indecent acts, and Ben 10 when giving testimony. does not come to find fault if you do not remember to-right every detail. Anyway, it seems that the presence of many holy books and images of rabbis are commonplace among the ultra-Orthodox community, which is why they did not seem I, as anything unusual. addition, video footage of the house indicates that the stairs from the living room to the second floor are hardly visible. words of scholar saint, when asked whether the steps protruding right as you enter the living room: "No, not really see it in the corner on the side", Ltd. , 491 S. 27th). Added to this is the fact, that the video camera of the apartment, you could see that the front steps stood a chair and a table objects, which hid the staircase (3 steps only), blocking the possibility to go upstairs. door floor The second was closed (exhibits A / 45 and T / 46.) It is quite possible, that was so well during the event with the 'so he did not notice that there is a second floor., and is true that the fact that, during the search the apartment, there was a bed on the first floor. Perhaps, it was moved away (as, Y. said that was lying on the bed during the event, Exhibit A / 2 A, p 14, Q 28 and p 15 S. 14th third tape transcription). 79 In the case of the minor, the defendant's counsel raised the argument that the testimony filth, for whom there is nothing to throw the very credibility of what he gave. Indeed, the study of its investigations, shows that he spoke with others and hear them details. Thus, after the first interrogation along said I. injuries committed by "the man who lives on the bridge up," he said at the second investigation, immediately after being asked for his safety, that he is "already" know his name. Further, the said, on its own initiative, that the defendant's name on the same character over a bridge he knows friend of mine who told me that's how you call it "(Exhibit A / 2 A, p 5 sec first 10-11 cassette for transcription) . It also returned the second part of the investigation, adding that the member asked if the defendant was in, and So I said, 'Who is this?' ... 'The man who lives at the bridge over ... then he said,' Yes. Then I know that this man called Salman ". Friend also told him that he was in with the nurse researcher and white (p 17 Sat 1-6 second tape transcription) and Ben Zion giving out candy with poison (p 7 S. 15-18 S. 27 transcription fourth recording). The question, what caused him to tell what happened, said J. that his parents told him that they saw him in the movie. Also said that he knows that his parents were talking about it with people in the neighborhood, that there was also a meeting of the parents about it, and that woman from the neighborhood saw his brother and him entering together to the house of the accused and go away together (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 9 Sat 1 12 The third tape transcription). 80 Moreover, referring to the place of residence of the man with the gray beard, said I. The number of building and number of his apartment, adding: "what is the most likely. Went there with my dad, and he asked me, here? It here," said it seems to me "(Exhibit A / 1 A, p 8 S. 25-26 second recording for transcription.) When asked how he knew Ben Zion, he replied:" All the kids are talking ... all the kids in the neighborhood know how to call it .. Once, when I got so ... so the kids said to me, been a long time after that, those things around, two years after "(p 9 S. 3-33). whose black man with a ponytail, said J., said that the two brothers they were his parents, "When everyone heard" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 11 S. Third tape transcription 27-28). well as third in his investigation, he said about Ben Zion: "Everyone knows him ... told me he kidnaps ... was snatching children, kidnaps, abducts and beat "(Exhibit A / 3 A, p 10 Q 15-22). referring to Skippy, knew J said that he broke flowerpots and added:" Since he did things to me so I'm interested .. . said that Benjamin and more people do ... they also say the gray ponytail "(p 10 sec by 31 to 11 h, 3). I. Although he said that his neighbors showed him a picture of Skippy and his mother asked him who this picture. According to him, they asked him because I was telling my brothers that they wanted to be sure that it is "(p 13). He also said, there are things about an older woman in the neighborhood, She's a Christian "(Exhibit A / 7 A, p 37 S. 18th). 81 As stated above, I have found that when we examine The outcome of the infection, the relevant question to ask is, whether influenced by the "general atmosphere of the things he had heard and whether they led him to describe himself has not experienced incidents or exaggerate his statements regarding the defendant. In the case of J, I find no answer to this question. Despite statements to them exposed, I do not think that pollution has taken on the testimony of J with respect to the defendant, and is the cause. 82 I reach this conclusion based on the first of the many signs of truth in his testimony that were intertwined, which I have expanded above detailed description, richly detailed and coherent provided for both events, he was back, consistently, open testimony in spontaneous speech; His concern separate incidents, the damage and the identity of the acts committed by any one of them; Many demonstrations spontaneously committed during his testimony as deeds description, which also recurred; And the innocent and authentic language in describing things and in particular, the situation in which he touched the defendant's penis. All this, remove the fear, gift, ancient things he had heard from other kids or that invented things based on rumors Malibu them exposed. If it was copied version or the version which is the fruit of the imagination, I greatly doubt whether there would any of these characteristics. It is hard, the age of the child was unable to repeat consistently and just so impressive and reasonable, was confusing in light of the many questions asked about it. See in this regard the words of the researcher when, that "my assumption that a child succeeds so consistently over so many investigations with all the criteria to say it as he said them" - the number of events that actually occurred, "child told him to say these things exactly, can not, will not work., I as an adult I can not "(my emphasis - a 'c') (p 253 S. 20-24). 83 Add to this the fact that the testimony of the 'descriptions was saturated with feelings and thoughts related to the occurrence of events in time. Evident from difficulty in referring to his mental and authentic reflection of hard experience last. There is nothing even negate the risk, the story is the result of external influence. For option, a person who has not experienced the things himself and his body, he could make up his imagination and feelings as he described the thoughts, so authentic and unplanned, seems remote. See in this regard the therapist's words Khalili, that I. She said, "When this child more than a disgrace, and when I felt it more scary" (p 852 S. 10-11). Also said that the 'felt very guilty, because he older brother and in some cases two brothers accompanied him: "feeling, he would have to be like to keep them and he did not keep. He would need to know to avoid these situations and he could not avoid or escape" ( Ltd. 852 S. 26-28). These feelings of guilt and shame, they also indicate clearly that the story told is the story that J. did not copy things he heard from others. 84 Another point which leads me to the conclusion, that the rumors and statements which exposed the 'power had not led him to weave a false accusation against the defendant, lies in the fact that they are mostly concerned other offenders and the accused himself. As far as statements relating to the defendant, the intensity of infection was fairly minor.Thus, referring to the talks held between the children and the rumors circulating in the neighborhood, did not specify the "name of the defendant, but other names. He said, "All the kids in the neighborhood" know the name of Ben-Zion Everybody knows it "and also say that he kidnaps children and hit them. Referring to Skippy, said, "I was interested ... said that Benjamin and more people do ... they also say the gray ponytail." J even mentioned an elderly woman who lived in the neighborhood, saying that there are things about it too. Shows that despite being exposed to the "considerable environmental pollution, the pollution that did not own a business defendant. There is thus significantly reduce the risk, exposed to environmental pollution Y., caused him to increase the involvement of the accused in the case, or even at all to imagine the very vulnerability by defendant. Statements sharp hearing, the defendant did not.'ll Add a footnote to this statement about the J., that the defendant "always wear a fedora and ever pray" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 10 S. Fourth recording transcription 25-26), that it is not clear whether he heard it from others, and in any case, there is no comparison between the intensity Amir negative stereotype about the abduction of children, beating and continuous poisoning, and a statement that the person does not pray. 85 will say that an open and detailed speech of the 'neighborhood held talks and sources of information, to deny the possibility, Y. avoided or concealed some talk about the defendant. If it was the 'hear conversations on the defendant, no doubt, who mention it. It should also be noted that the non-mention of "the defendant, in the context of the talk and rumors that they wanted the neighborhood, is also consistent with the fact that the trophy presented evidence regarding the defendant's counsel many conversations that took place between residents of the neighborhood on the identity of that damage - no Cited both the defendant and the focus would harm other characters. 86 who overheard J with his friend, shows that in the case of the accused, the infection was familiar with it, Shay, told him that the name of the man on the bridge - is Salman.And no more. Friend, not described to him the appearance of Salman or acts committed, he also said statements attesting to being negative and dangerous man. In any case, there are her mother, trusted me, that J told her about the first defendant before the police investigation and says it was also the first to tell her story J. At home he said very clearly the name "(p 780 S. 2nd -3). Also, be honest with her, that you may not mention the name of the accused to the police but only Skippy, We were under pressure because of the big bad this time of the evening was really fast, maybe at 12:00 pm, and the fact that it was such a child is a summary will be investigated In any case, there is no need to extend "(p 812 S. 1-5). 87 This is the place to say, that did not go off of the comments, that the member asked if the defendant was in and told him that he (boyfriend) was in the researcher and therapist in white. However, I am satisfied that this amounted to the conversation and that they did not go into the contents. I was impressed that the researcher checked this further, and asked who "tell him" everything "friend" told me that he was [for the researcher] ". So, the answer: "nothing is said" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 17 Q 15-17). Then, he asked who "tell" all that was "after he told a friend, he was with the man who lives at the bridge over, Y. replied," I have not told him anything. He just told me how was the arrest of Ben-Zion "(in- 20-21). As I mentioned, I think that the fact that Shay, not avoided telling the sources of his information, he elaborated further on the subject when asked and sometimes even referred to this on his own initiative, says that if he had a conversation with a friend than that, he was not hiding it. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the 'he said, his own initiative, he said boyfriend, Ben Zion giving out candy with poison. I do not see any reason, why tell a friend told him, Ben Zion gave poison and will talk about the other things he said to the member, about the defendant. 88 of the body is exposed to the information, the author - the name of the man on the bridge is Salman - I can not find, as argued by counsel for the defendant, that this information has led to the 'smear defendant committed other acts. So I did not have a real possibility of putting defendant, that the 'changed between him and Benjamin Sichuan (p 1097 S. 27-30). since, Y. able to differentiate between the two and between the acts committed by each of them: Benjamin recognized when he was presented with his picture and the next picture appearance, saying that It is the defendant, "I told you to his house and I was a minister," (Exhibit A / 4 A). convinced by his words, that he was not seen before the images of the two, and supported it, one can see that J did not hesitate to say, the neighbors showed a photo of Skippy and his mother asked him who this picture (Exhibit A / 3 A, p 13). defendant himself, agreed that Sichuan nothing like it outside (p 1098 S. 12) as explained researcher saint, that his apartment of the defendant located in a different position from that of Benjamin (p 498 S. 26-30). Accordingly, told J how he got into the apartment of the defendant, that was in the yard with his two brothers and the defendant went out and looked at the trees, willows and told them to come home (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 2 S. 16-17 third tape transcription). Hence, the possibility of confusion between the two is negligible. 89 Furthermore, it is important to note that seating in the second, it has been told the name of "the man on the bridge," returned I. the same things described his first interrogation. He was not exaggerating and never changed them. This means that the identity of the man on the bridge before, did not lead him to describe events not experienced or exaggerate the actions attributed to the defendant. In fact, only The outcome of that statement, but attribution is there to imagine - and more. Given all this, I was not impressed at all, that a conversation with a friend polluted the testimony of J with respect to the statement made by the defendant and in relation to his actions. She did not reveal that any information not previously told him or led him to aggravate the defendant.As evidence, in his second, when he spoke of an incident that occurred at the home of Skippy, said J., that the defendant was present in but did nothing (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 9 Sat 8 transcription fourth recording). Similarly, one can see that side to him, that a woman from the neighborhood saw him entering his brother and the defendant's home together and come out together (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 9 Sat 1-12 third tape transcription), Y. himself insisted that , he first came home "after my brothers left.'m not so noticed them" (Exhibit A / 2 A, p 4 Q 4-5 third tape transcription). That is, it is not at all affected by her words and sticking to his version. 90 and the last on Pollution - Impact of the investigation, his parents, his interrogation by the researcher before the children. As mentioned above, the 'saw his mother crying and she explained to him and his brother, that she was crying because We know that it happened to you, it's very sad, and I expect you to tell me what really happened so that we can help you "(p 760 S. 1) . The mother added that she also said her children "manipulative statements" in order to encourage them to talk about injuries (p 798 S. 9-10), and in this, she told them that she knew filmed by Giora them (p 764 S. 13th). Also testified that after the two brothers, told them about the vulnerability Y. has not yet told her husband and she told him: "They say you participated ... we expect that you tell, you do it at your own pace" (p 760 h 28 to E. 761 S. 7th). The next morning, came the 'their room and began to talk about injuries. 91 Counsel for the defendant argued that these statements are suggestive remarks at a high level, have contaminated the testimony. "However, I can not accept this argument. Impression that the question whether the 'generality entry is injured and the injury of content words itself. testimony on this matter was compelling and logical, and I was impressed with her, because as she said, "At this point, what was important to me was knowing really what child has been really, how he had the experience" (p 764 S. 2-3). Indeed, statements, that "We know that something has happened" and Know that you participate ", but are potentially more statements to break the dam of silence and do not have a specific idea as planting for the content infringement itself. well as saying that they saw the" movie, does not raise the above concerns, for it was a general statement and I said, what was the content of the film, not even hinted to him, that this is a sexual connotation film. context, it is important to pay attention to the words of J, that he asked his parents, "How was the film seems ", but" they did not answer me answers "just told him, they know he was in the movie (Exhibit A / 1 A, p 10 S. 22-28 second recording for transcription). immediately afterwards, also added that his parents told him," You know what was the bridge 'and' We know you ", but even here," I have not found anything "(This statement does not appear captioning, see the second tape 37 minutes). These remarks, which were made spontaneously and on its own initiative, fit well with the words of the mother of J, because she did not ask the children to specific questions but just told them "I know you would, direction was we already know and you come now and get no, really they have not heard from us content, it was not a general direction "(p 764 S. 8-11). 92 This means that in conversations with J, revealed that his parents did not content themselves vulnerable. As a result, they are not planted in the mind ideas of possible injuries or negative thoughts about the defendant. Indeed, one can see that the terms used by the Description of the erection of a defendant, not terms are fluent adults ("flexing", "gets stronger"), but this is a description of the first hand, the boy tells of something he did not understand the meaning . I come to a similar conclusion about the tour also by the parents of neighborhood Y.. According to the mother, the 'is' Show us. We did not know where they went, "as well as before the tour, when asked I. Did some homes, they asked only" about people who had been detained "as" for people who were arrested did not know, they did not have information yet "(p 793 Sat 8-15). namely, part of the tour were no content of their own vulnerability, and in particular, do not speak of the house of the accused, who was arrested later. 93 I should add that I have not found that, Shay, said the vulnerability only when asked about it several times and that he had not hurt, because any indication that the pressure after pressure from his parents. Victims often find it difficult to share sexual offenses and tell them what happened, and certainly in the case of J, which belongs to the community, where sexual issues are concealed. Therefore, it is natural, that would deny First, something happened to him. It is important to remember the fears of the 'defendant would hurt him if he told about what happened, especially while the defendant was still free in the neighborhood. Consequently, it is natural that the 'be afraid to tell the researcher what children, a stranger outside a closed community in which he lives. And saw her mother, that "when he told the story he started to cry and said we were moving on Sunday, he would kill me if he knows I was talking about, so I told him 'Listen, there's a way to move and get away, and through the fight, you will you tell What was "(p 781 S. 5-9) and that" he did not want to be questioned and worse than that he would not leave the house until he was arrested "(p 782 S. 1-2). 94 taking into account the heavy whispered Revenge of the defendant if he told, I do not see any fault also assured him that his mother, if the investigation will receive any gift (p 809 S. 7-8). This statement but designed to make the walk to the investigator, action inherent in considerable confusion and concern (and in the case of the 'real fear accused will avenge him). She came to make the negative connotation of walking investigator positive, nothing more. No it's forbidden from soliciting J say things in order to receive benefits. Subsequently, I was impressed that my mother's words have, that "we expect that you will tell" are only dubbed statements, which were made slowly and carefully, rather than by way of threat, criticism or disapproval demonstration denial. Alongside them, I made sure whether to say, "Do it at your own pace" and that she expected him to tell her, "so we can help." I should add that even though the mother had used the words "roller pressure" to describe how they brought Y. investigation, then I believe that in fact, it is encouraging and prodding alone, as indicated by a range of things: "He was very scared very reaction of Zalman Cohen and the rest of the people, He is very, very afraid, we had to turn it of pressure roller and tell him that he has the power to influence other people will continue to turn these dogs as prey and devour "(p 772 S. 23-29). 95 the impression this must be added the researcher's impression when, who found that the testimony of the 'credible despite the infection. In this regard, and similar claims about the researcher Hadas, defendant's counsel argued that the investigator when not conducted the investigation of the 'professionalism, having deepened the issue of pollution and checked properly the impact of pollution on the. However, after reviewing it, I believes that there is no room to accept this argument. convinced that the issues of pollution - environmental and specific - standing in front of the eyes of the researcher when all the investigations and accordingly, he was very careful in the findings regarding the reliability of children, including for the. possible to learn that his answer to the question in "as the defendant, why not inquired with the one who said to him, the neighbor saw him leave his house of the accused, then said:" I take it that infections are more and bigger than this woman saw them coming and going "(p 248 S. 23 -24) .vatam, the investigator testified that he took into account the parents spoke to each other, they questioned the children and the children talked among themselves. Indeed, the first evidence summary, the researcher noted that during the investigation was the face of the mother's announcement that she also told him herself, she and her husband operated the press to tell them what happened, and they told him, they saw his in his film. The investigator wrote that is also noted in the face, she heard a conversation between her children, during which he said the "little brother, that he would give him a prize if you do not disclose (exhibit A of Section 11/1). Furthermore, the researcher said, that took into account the natural density of the neighborhood, so anyone heard of the events that take place in it. The investigator added that all these, combined with the fact that such incidents are ongoing, and many participants, hampered the investigation and required professionalism and time (p 35 Sat 1-12). 96 It seems to me that the figures speak for themselves and are visually overwhelming that, indeed, as he says, drove the investigator when the "special care" (p 36 S. 12th) and meticulousness: of the 10 children studied, only 3 "received" credible (p 37 Q 26-27 and exhibit a / 14). In particular, it did for I.. Viewing tapes of the investigation shows that when the question arose how to know Y. particular individual, the investigator asked him about it and found out what is the source of knowledge in depth. Researcher, I did not set "comprehensive and credible when having trouble, say so. So with regard to the description of 'the minister's genitals, and for the words of J, that sexual abuse was up two sisters. For these reasons, I am sure, the researcher analyzed the testimony of J. professionally, considering all relevant data, including the risk of infection, which he says his hung over the whole affair. I emphasize that impressed when the investigator's testimony. 97 To summarize this point, I found that it was exposed to the infection affects the testimony brought him a copy he had heard from other events or delusions planted in his mind. 98 who demand assistance. I find the testimony of the aid 'behavior at the time of vulnerability, as appears from the testimony of his mother, who was impressive and convincing. Is told of a case where he refused the 'go to the synagogue, the behavior did not fit the character. She and her husband were trying to figure out why and then the "output only that Zalman Cohen pray there." She told of another case in which she heard the name of the defendant's mouth, on Sukkot (the last before the injury). Her husband sent J to buy a guarantee from the tree of the defendant Y. expressed "opposition was not understood., He preferred to go to a ten-minute walk to the Geula neighborhood and buy him the guarantee," (p 753 S. 1-8). Also talked about it one night sent the 'pick up the two brothers, and three disappeared mysteriously. She looked for them and found them in the yards. When she returned home, there were three children and were "very vague, indeed abnormally pale." They did not provide clear answers Where did and when she asked if anyone hurt them "feeble reply, they said no, but did not say as well." The next morning, she noticed Y. lame "just noticeable limp, holding his hand like this forward, as if protecting himself" (p 757 S. 4-25). The next day, she asked the 'lame and that's why he told her, he recalled that last class got hit from the angle of the table (in, 27-29). According to her, five weeks later, on Rosh Chodesh Av, when she told her children about the vulnerability, they referred her for the evening (p 758 S. 18-20). So even saw the place of the defendant pinch of the testicles, but there were no external signs: "It was excruciating pain, he cried and it was five weeks later it still hurts him, It was tender to the touch ... we saw physical sensitivity, He jumped to the touch "(p 762 S. 13-26). 99 In addition, there are the words of the mother, which revealed how the 'the injury. After she told him that two of his brothers said he was present vulnerability, "At first he accused them of being liars, then he moderated his approach, he said they do not lie I currently do not remember anything ... I do not remember what I might have been mentioned below so We went to sleep ... The next morning he came to us in our bedroom, very early in the morning, and he said he remembered the night he thought about it and remembered to tell us what was "(p 761 S. 7-14). Is defined by the arrival of the 'Thing exception to their room, "since all is at home, parents who wake:" He was supposed to wait we wake up and he could tell what he wanted, he was very upset, very confused, is not While crying, but he's really hard to respond to this story, he just realized that there is no alternative, the brothers said even if he and the moment of truth has come, and he must speak "(in" 23-27). 100 Finally, there are words of the mother on the mental state of Y. After exposing the deeds, and his fear of revenge by the defendant: "After he told the story he started to cry and said we were moving on Sunday, he would kill me if he knows I was talking about" (Ltd. 781 S. 5-9) and that "he did not want to be questioned and worse than that he would not leave the house until he was arrested" (p 782 S. 1-2). In addition, she said there was "tremendous decline" in the behavior of each of the four children: "The house has become a battlefield, all the frustration and anger they unloaded on us, on the walls" (p 763 S. 15-17). 101 I states that different words have the mother's physical and mental condition of the - of the creep behavior 'after the events, it does not wish to visit the synagogue where the defendant prays and buy him a guarantee; Penis injury; Severe mental condition during the exposure incident, the deterioration in his behavior and fear then the defendant's vengeance - are all provided assistance version. Yes there Khalili therapist's words, that the 'described her feelings of fear and shame during the acts. As stated above, there is also support for the version of the 'as practiced by three other minors, who gave evidence of similar acts of the defendant. Beyond that, I find that more assistance, the defendant searched the offices of a number of toy guns were found (see Exhibit A rifle shots / 35), in accordance with the description of J, that the defendant had a gun "as the guards' case.This would implicate the defendant and tie it in fact attributed to him. 102 Counsel for the defendant argued that the toy gun can be seen as an object similar to the description of 'the gun in the holster, but This argument must be rejected. Important is the description about the gun and a toy gun in the presence of the defendant's office. Anyway, not impossible, the defendant was also a case, which is not perceived. defendant also argued that the toy gun, like other accessories in the office (such as masks, axes sponge, dolls of children and plastic handcuffs) needed for your work as a therapist Double: "I'm doing a show with a gun Toy Puente to illustrate the couple so they stop fighting "(p 1083 S. 2-3). however, did not support this argument in any way. however, in spite of his words, that his presentation with a toy gun became a well-known method of treatment and is even running it to a group of rabbinical marriage counselors, and Every group after hearing what I'm doing with guns rolled with laughter from that and then told me that everyone went out and bought toy guns "(p 1054 S. 5-7). fact, not a single one of those stated marriage counselors or his patients, to support his words - is his duty. explanation provided by that person who will testify on his behalf "murdered" is unconvincing, when these are not marriage counselors residents are completely external, possibly from another. Therefore, I declare that the defendant did not provide any credible and compelling explanation for the presence of the toy gun in his office, according to his account of the assistant. 103 To sum up this charge, I declare, that his version of the "credible and found her assistance where there is evidence to prove that the defendant actually committed the acts attributed to him in the indictment. Charges for reduced S. 104 Viewing tapes of the investigation of S. leads me to adopt the impression of the researcher, and to determine that the version of S. reliable and is told about an incident she experienced herself. Subsequently, I rule out the possibility that this is a false memory or copying of other things she heard from them or other events attended. 105 S. was studied when she was nine years old. Testimony analysis shows that despite the embarrassment reconstruct the event and despite its difficult to describe sexual descriptions, and her version was credible and consistent underlying element of truth that can not be appealed. Whole story is presented, consisting of three parts: First, the home of Ben-Zion, later transferring to the home of Benjamin and finally, transfer to the defendant's house, where the incident occurred is the subject of the indictment. Theory of how moved between houses, were rich in detail and spontaneous. Thus, reported that when she came out from the house of Ben-Zion, he escorted her to the stairs and then looked to see that she was rising to Benjamin, "because he did not want me to go back home" (Exhibit A / 28, p 2 Q 1-7 record transcription first). Also a description of how the defendant came to his house was full of authentic detail. S. said that Benjamin told them, "Now I bring you another one. Devastation, go home" ... "He said, Come with me ... we went after him. Then we got the name, so he told us here, did not see you "(Exhibit A / 28, p 8 S. 30-32 and on page 9 S. 14-16 first tape transcription), and added that the accused went to the house of a Y. another girl. Question of the researcher, where was the Minister, said that, because she ran way: "He went ahead of us, we went after him. Way he has never seen it live over at where he went (not clear) and we had to go back. Then she wanted so there is a building between each other (shows) so he could not see so she ran away "(Exhibit A / 28, p 8 S. 27-30 second recording for transcription). When they arrived at the defendant's house, Y. gone. 106 I find these descriptions attributed reinforced because in my opinion, if it were that of imagination or copying of the things she heard from others, it is highly doubtful whether such a version was imagining detailed and complex, which is not moving at all events, but the circumstances that preceded them. If this event was invented, reasonable, simple pattern was different, she could remember and repeat it. In particular, her statement that the Minister 'escaped, while a detailed explanation of how she did it, was the most authentic and enhances the reliability of her. She also anchors the story in the context of a situation and place. Consequently, there is a note that she says, that when the defendant came to his house, he told them to close "soon" the door and then locked it (the exhibit / 28, p 9 S. 19-20 first tape transcription), as According to how well the event was over, the defendant then told them, "Go home, and must not see how you come out here," Open the door with the key and 'We should have a peek, no one is .. he told us that we could escape quickly "(Exhibit A / 28 , Ltd. 11 Q 32 to p 12 S. 18th first tape transcription). These descriptions were very detailed and are consistent with the description of the door lock at the start of the event. Costs are very authentic, describes the isolation and dynamics of Foga- injured. 107 Consequently, even referring to the event itself, said that "a detailed and accurate description of the arrangement and the way things happened, which incorporated many spontaneous demonstrations. She described a rather complicated event, constructed of several parts: First, the income to the bathroom when the other girl waiting outside. Then, it was issued, and elevating the second floor of the house, when the other girl in the bathtub. In the second stage, the second child's inclusion to the second floor and shared viewing of a movie for two adults playing football. Thereafter, three football game, when naked. Then, download the two together in the first floor bathroom and separate income, this time in reverse order from the first time (before the second child and then Q). Then, another film screening in childhood viewed together, are on the football, and three of the game again, but this time with clothes (Exhibit A / 28, p 17 S. 2nd second tape transcription). 108 Referring to occur in the bathroom, she described that "the conduct of each of the two different times: the first time, lying on her back with her legs" were on the bathroom ... it was as if the fence "and the defendant" sat on it "on a stick, ordered her to touch it and touched it himself (p 9 S. 33-34 first tape transcription and on page 9 Sat 16 to P 10 sec 1 second tape transcription). The second time, lay on your stomach, with her legs "is not on the fence, next to, like" (shown on the drawing of the bathroom painted). So, where she accused the stick between your legs "and then he was sitting again." Q shook her head the question of whether this time the defendant made her something else. She just lay on my stomach, "where the stick and sat down on the stick and it scratched me and it made my blood", then told her, "Get out, I'll wipe you and I would dress you" (p 15 S. 30 E. 16 S. 21 transcription cassette II). 109 shows that the things I mentioned regarding the circumstances leading up to the event, become even clearer when we are dealing with the description of the event itself: if it was invented event likely, was that builds a simpler pattern, she can remember and repeat it. However, she described a very complex event, many events sub built. Despite the fact that, as part of those events was the same sub-described Q for each different sequence: (a) for the first time in the bath, she lay on her back and the second time, on the abdomen. For the first time, touched the penis of the accused and he touched her vagina, and the second time, so the stick scratched expense of the bathroom and touched the defendant and the defendant did not touch her. Each time, had her legs apart in a different situation: the first on the foundation of the bathroom and the other by my side walls of the bathroom (in) soccer first, was, naked, while in the other they were clothes (c) For the first time, she went into the bathroom first, followed by the other girl. Next time, it was reversed, and the other girl went into the bathroom in front of her. Descriptions of each of these was combined with that of the demos or her explanation of the painting on the bathroom painted. There is nothing to lead me to the only conclusion that S. described which was invented and imagined things. Possibility of giving birth to age S. succeed her imagination to invent such a complex event, and be able to repeat the nuances each sub unifying events told them, standing next to the elements common to all (lying in the bath, playing football) - seems remote, to zero. 110 Accordingly, it can be seen that any theory of S. spontaneous statements were accompanied by many, about the dynamics between her and the defendant, and that her feelings at the time of the incident. Hard Such statements were spoken by someone who has not experienced the events themselves. Thus, she said that, that the defendant told her to touch him, saying, "You have to do it" and then, "he told me, I touch, touch you, and you can not move" (Exhibit A / 28, p 10 sec 3 The first recording for transcription -6). Q pointed to the genitals as the place where the defendant touched her and she described how she felt when he touched her there, because she felt "severe pain" and that the defendant there with finger pressure (exhibit A / 28, p 12 S. 11-15 second recording for transcription). According to her, when the defendant told her to wait on the second floor: "I started to walk ... he told me, but quickly go ... He said I'll call the other" (my emphasis - a 'c') (p 10 S. 11th 12 first tape transcription). Q, also known estimate the time, and said, that touched the defendant's penis one minute (p 11 s 16 second recording for transcription) and that she was waiting on the second floor about 10 minutes, until it joined the other girl (LTD 10 sec 18 first tape transcription). Also said that the defendant told the other girl a bath Walsh, wait outside and Another few seconds he comes "(p 11 Sat 4-5 first tape transcription). 111 His description of the damage in the bathroom with a cane, was the most authentic.S. said that the defendant told her, "Now I open your legs, I put you to stick, and you must not shout." According to her, bled her stick and when he had accused the bath "and is seen to have some more blood, so he wiped it" (my emphasis - a 'c') (p 11 S. 16-17 S. 27-28 first tape transcription ). She described that the bath water was at a height of about 10 centimeters (as it shows) and when asked to talk about the water, she replied: "transparent". Then asked whether they were hot or cold, and she replied "Nice" (p 12 S. 27-32 second recording for transcription). The stick, described as a stick of wood, about two feet in length (to demonstrate this, Ltd. 10 sec 23-26 second recording for transcription). Commenting that bled, that is not excessive and said "not very full", "So stick some down time so it's a bit scratched" (p 16 S. 8 and S. 17-19 second recording for transcription). Also described that played in black and white ball. S. also told the order of sleepwear garments by the defendant at the end of the event (p 16 s by 23 to 17 h, 7). 112 I believe, that all those, also reject the defendant's counsel raised the possibility that S. Old first two events were on the same day, the homes of Ben Zion Bosch. Indeed, as defendant's counsel pointed out, all three events are the same motifs : bathtub with water, sitting east of offending, football film screening and a wooden stick. But there the comparison ends. The description of the event at the home of the accused, is completely independent. Hard to beat, giving birth to age S., belonging to a closed community, where the issue of sex is taboo severe, fabricate her imagination descriptions so detailed sexual abuse Unusual and bizarre, including that lay with her legs apart and that the defendant where a stick between her legs and sat on it (Note that S. said, the event in Ben Zion she was beaten with a stick). It is also difficult to believe that accompany these descriptions many spontaneous demonstrations by painting her body and onto the bathroom painted, and fix the researcher describing the situation. For example, when the investigator told her, "the knee Knee cane was" corrected that and said: "Not from knee to knee, a little higher" (Exhibit A / 28, p 10 Sat 6-7 second tape transcription). Further investigation, repeated it, the defendant put the stick "over the knee" (p 16 s 6). I will say that given that damage worked together in most cases, then it is not surprising at all, vulnerability and bearing a similar nature in which these motifs appear. In fact, there was a copy of that harm themselves - they are copied from each other. 113 In this context, there is also a researcher's impression, as well as my impression that S. is not recited and known to elaborate on specific parts of the story, when asked about it. As the researcher said Hadas, "It's not a story you can learn it and memorize it", yes, it is a long and complex event (p 334 S. 23-25 ​​and on page 367 S. 28th). Viewing the tape investigation, removes any doubt about the possibility of fabrication, foliage or attempt to please the researcher kids. Authenticity was evident in the words of S., body movements and signs her face. She often mumble and her speech was slurred. So squirmed in her seat. After telling about the event, silent S. A long silence at the end, asked to leave cessation services (Exhibit A / 28, p 5 sec 32 first tape transcription). Her mental difficulty to comment, ballet throughout the description. Body language signs of truth and a speech of that, they also taught me that the testimony reflected the last authentic experience body and soul. 114 Counsel for the defendant further argued that given the structure of the bathroom, the posture described by Q is impossible. Defendant added that there is a partition that made it to the bath shower (p 1047 Sat 1-3.) However, this argument too receive. having watched footage bathroom (video and still exhibits T / 45-47), I do not see any impediment, to perform the position in question. matter, there are also statements by police. investigator friend, testified that the width of the bathroom was tested to see Are you sure this is the width which can put the child in describing her, and found that it was possible (p 581 S. 557-560). Likewise, according to the researcher saint, "I remember one of the girls said that his name was ... her legs in the bathtub him apart and it was kind of place ... really saw it fit that niche "(p 480 S. 18-20). 115 Consequently, I believe, that the defendant's sitting cross-legged kind of stick (as transcribed by the researcher that the demo, Ltd. 377 S. 12-13) - is possible, having regard to the manner in which this was done, as explained researcher Hadas, based on the demo of S. her: "She leaned against the walls of the bathroom, her feet would stick and he probably sat, leaning against it" (p 379 S. 28-29). Multiple interrogations, made it clear that "her feet were on the tracks, it's not independent, and all it stood only about her weight, she divided with the weight on the bathroom walls" (p 470 S. 25-29). In this context, one should not forget that the age of 'When the event (eight years), and during the investigation (nine years). So, do not expect it to accurately describe every detail is important and the description of the act. In this context, there is little point in researcher's words, that "it's her experience, he sat. Could be accused before us just a little" lean, but "she felt a bearing, she felt the weight" (p 380 S. 8-10). Additionally, viewing video photography suggests bathroom, the defendant put his stick on the foundation of the bathroom. 116 It should be noted that I did not have any particular significance to this, there were places where she talked S. plural, as if she and the other girl were in the bath together (see, for example, remarks that "stick grazed us" ... "He took us out" of the bath and "We wiped the blood" and then "clothed us and let us see a movie," the exhibit / 28, p 4 Sat 7-16 first tape transcription). I agree with the researcher Hadas, that speech plural intent but "both of which went through the process, she was the first and then the second. Then after they got the title She noted that once again he put them in the bathroom. Earlier Tuesday, and then it" (p 374 S. 1-4). These things are very well during the investigation, then said that, in a certain place, that "Then he took us out ... got me" (Exhibit A / 28, p 11 S. 27th first tape transcription). 117 In addition, I found minor inaccuracies and apparent contradictions of words that, to harm its credibility. For her, that after the football game, dressed the same defendant on the second floor, he told them to go down to the first floor and took them home. Therefore, she was asked by the researcher: "But you said it took you to the bathroom again," S. said yes. Researcher asked: "You said he dressed you up right now" and that "return" is first introduced us to the bathroom "(Exhibit A / 28, Ltd. 15 S. 5-10). Additionally, the question of the researcher, return, once the defendant wiped the blood to dress her, "he touched me" (p 11 S. 29-31 first tape transcription), but later, when she was asked that "These repeated, extended and then she was silent, embarrassed laugh and said:" No, then I was bleeding so he told me to go out so I want to wipe it "(p 16 s 20-21 second recording for transcription). Given the young age of S. emotional difficulty reconstructing the traumatic event, which is evident throughout the entire testimony of that, but naturally, that would be a lack of precision or some confusion in the order in which events happened. they do not necessarily harm the sincerity of the things she gave. important is whether presented a reliable picture, consistent and coherent about the core of the event is the subject of the indictment: very slowly undressing, Tucking in the bathroom, sitting on it (on a stick), touching the genitals and teaching touch defendant's penis. stated, in the case of h - it was not. Parenthetically I should add that I did not find the defendant's counsel's claim is true, that does not make sense Saturday afternoon one would notice, the girls go through the house, and neither logical, six, did not run away. Obviously, intimidation of the accused and the others follow the action, so that not escaped. 118's credibility further supported Sat is its exact description of the defendant's apartment, which, in turn, claimed that she had never been in that year that a stranger came to his home: "At first room inside line has the living room. Room there by the wall first really steps up to the rooms, upstairs "(Exhibit A / 28, p 9 Sat 6-7 second tape transcription and the words of the accused exhibit / 36 in 39). Well described, the second floor had two rooms, including "computer, a bed, a closet" (p 14 S. 11th). In this regard, although the defendant claimed that does not own a computer, but also has agreed that his house had two laptops belonging to his son, who disappeared a few days before his arrest (a topic on which I will address later) (p 1112 S. 24-26). There is also a report of the action of the General Jewish scholar search the house of the accused along with the defendant's son, who told him that the computers were in the attic (Exhibit T / 53). 119. similar claims about J, the defendant argued, that Q is not unique to any information described in his home, including the living room wall with books and images of outstanding rabbis in (p 1038 S. 31). However, as held in the case of J, I did not find this criticism. Another argument heard from the mouth of the defendant in this regard was that type of construction in the neighborhood is uniform as well as some of the apartments have been renovated in the same way: attic stairs and divided into two rooms. Hence, he argued, the description of S. apartment, he could describe any standard apartment in the area. He said he knows of at least three other apartments who renovated the same (p 1049 S. 1-3). His interrogation, claimed that "some of my neighbors helped renovate their apartments," but preferred not to give their names, without asking their permission (shown in the / 36 Sat 85-88). Out, that the defendant's claim that many residents renovated the apartment like him - never proven and remains a mere claim. The fact, that's her mother, told of another family's apartment, which was rebuilt in a similar manner (p 961 S. 1-16), it can not be useful, since it is not an indication that overwhelmingly All apartments are built in the same way. Moreover, according to the mother of Q, that another one-room apartment attic floor (in 6), while the house of the accused was divided into two attic rooms, as described by s. 120 and the final point on this matter and description of the bathroom door. S., was not requested by the researcher to describe the bath itself (according to the researcher, she did not think that there is room for this, Ltd. 381 S. 17th) and she just asked at the door waiting for birth, as described in a door, "steel", even though this is a wooden door (Exhibit A / 28, p 13 S. 24-28 second recording for transcription.) defendant's counsel argued that does not make sense, six, you will not notice the wooden door, steel door, especially since she said she waited at the door twice. However, it should be noted, that the door is painted dark brown (see Exhibit T / 46). Given her young age, it is quite possible, misled and thought the door was made of sterner stuff than wood. In any case, it is surely this island accuracy, range of things to damage removal, including the description of the defendant's apartment. Did not find the defendant's counsel's argument point that S. had not realized the partition Hfrsfkt bath. Except it's not unusual at all and so it is not surprising that S. did not mention it. 121 Finally, I will note that I did not find her silence of Q in his first and thus deprived where the suspicion of being a victim of sexual abuse, to impair its reliability and credibility. In this matter, determined more than once that "under normal circumstances, the Court attaches weight to the suppression of evidence, but not so at all ... sexual offenses courts have recognized that there K"n reasons for which the victim of the offense chooses to take the testimony, often for many years. However, due to external reasons such as fear and peer pressure, fear of exposure to the public and concerns about the difficulty of the process of investigation and trial ... and because of internal reasons such as feelings of guilt, shame, shame, embarrassment, insult, rejection, aversion Internal and sometimes, even a misunderstanding the victim that made it forbidden things "(see the comments of Honour Y. Amit, oral 5582/09 Doe v State of Israel, given on 20:10:10, paragraph 86). In this context, there are words of researcher Hadas, who explained the silence of Q in his first severe mental condition which was in. She says, "I was then escorted by telephone because of its situation worried me and immediately began psychiatric treatment" (p 408 S. 12-14) .oacn, plight of S. The first investigation, it was very evident. Q spoke in a whisper, looking sheepish and looked straight. In particular, looked puzzled presence of the camera and look at it often. When the investigator told her, she realized that someone had hurt her sexually, silent Q for several minutes. It seems that at the time was not yet ripe and strong enough to tell her story. 122 And now, the question of whether the testimony of S. infected. Is a month and a half passed between the first interrogation (on 07/31/11), it was silent and denied that was hit, and the second interrogation (on 09/19/11), which recounted the events which injured (including the indictment of the event) - Activated S. Press or she was exposed to information, which influenced her investigation, she made the second version and created a false memory in her mind? 123 In this matter, there are words of fear of S., who testified that in July 2011, after being told by a resident that her children were mentioned as having been at the Benjamin Sichuan, she sat her three daughters together, told them that heard they were in Benjamin Sichuan and asked, tell what happened: "See no reply, S. mother told me, if I would not name telling you? Nonsense. And a third that says I can not remember. "Is continued and testified that" I put those two in the room, trying at all costs, I know you've been you can not tell me that you would not. "However, the girls" did not open his mouth, after two hours I let them out of the room and that "(p 822 S. 17-25). According to her," Then I tried a second time to talk, so I called S. alone, and once again I tried the same way I know you were, I did not want to give her a chance she could not, I know and I want you to tell me "..." And then she responded very, very hard, she pulled away as if she had some kind of recovery, that she began to cry and rave room, and treated me at all, it was for nearly half an hour ... and it also continued to fight with me, and suddenly she fainted in my arms. Just threw his head rolled her eyes, then she woke up, looked at a clear me, I tried to talk to her again, and she did not remember anything. She could not remember what had happened to her at all, she did not know what I'm talking about, and I left her "(my emphasis - a 'c') (p 822 S. 27th to E. 823 S. 17th). 124 Horror of S. clarified that S. "I said I was not, she said I do not remember, all along she said I do not remember., And I really got nervous and left her reaction to it." So, whether a police report filed (before she said that 'anything) (p 824 S. 6-9 S. 12). Then brought the girls to the center of defense and where they did not speak: "For a month after that, I saw the girl was just sitting in various corners of thoughtful ... She was like sitting dreaming about things, and it happened a lot ... and I did not press her for" (p 825 Q 1-6).Five weeks later, "One afternoon it was when she approaches me and tells me I remember mother" (p 825 S. 23-24). 125 is added, that it held a Q neighborhood tour during which she asked her, "Where have you been here, so it was pointed at me She pointed up at the door of the wall, the white door, there were some ... some of the names she knew she could not part names "(p 826 S. 16-19). During the tour, pointed out that "at the house of the accused (p 827 S. 7-9). According to the mother, she asked that, what happened everywhere he pointed: "It was a place she spoke a sentence, here [about what happened at the defendant] is telling the truth a little more" (p 827 S. 13-14). She could not remember whether that signified the name of the accused, adding: "I think she knows his name" ... "He's a familiar neighborhood kids know all the people of the neighborhood, not everyone is selling the names, but they know" (p 828 S. 26-27 and on page 829 S. 1-2). During the tour, filmed Are the houses that were highlighted S. and edited their list (which, according to her, she was lost). 126 In addition, it is known that the mother's occupation S. was a prominent topic.According to her, "I was responsible for the care of children, who wanted to care for the child should have come to me ... was the beginning of my road inset" (p 949 S. 4-7).Within this framework, she spoke with the welfare, care for the children sought and proposed a white nanny mothers Khalili. Also participated in the meetings of the mothers in the house of m. Also confirmed that some parents spoke on the phone with one of the mothers that brought her a list of names of children who were in Benjamin, because I've learned to come to me. Simply become accustomed to "(p 833 S. 18th). Beyond that, the mother of Q also made its own list of harm, including the defendant, as it claims, was based on a list of names she gave her children rather than on the basis of information transferred by the residents (p 978 S. 7th). As shown by the testimony of a childhood neighborhood in the trial of Ben-Zion, the list was found in a basket in the kitchen of the house. She says her sister ', she showed her the list: "She came curl of her mother, as she stood there in the kitchen, and shows me a list, it tells me there it is, all the neighbors testified that a grade is guilty, there was Salman, the son of Zion , a list of neighbors from the neighborhood "(Exhibit F / 32, p 710 S. 26-28). Also added that another neighbor grabbed her hand and the top is just enough to see "a long list of names, family names in all the children, and then marked V, X, would not have been, what they have decided." The girl added that fear of that, '"she said to me may not be that were all children of the neighborhood were" (Exhibit F / 32, p 711 S. 21-24). At one point she said, "The Top was accused list" but later clarified that there was no title to the list (Exhibit F / 32, p 711 S. 8th and on page 719 of S. 32 to E. 720 S. 6). 127 After I considered all of these, I find rule out the possibility, in his mother's neighborhood tour conducted and closed her intense preoccupation with the subject, influenced S. fabricate Version imagery. First, we can see that Q was not at all eager to incriminate the accused. She said that the defendant did something to her only once modest and exaggerated the number of times injured by it (the exhibit / 28, p 21 Q 4 second recording for transcription). In addition, during all investigations, there came out of the Q statements adverse to the defendant, and there are only words, that "He grows trees and what he grew removed it" (Exhibit A / 28, p 21 Sat 8 transcription second tape) that " He turns full, the neighborhoods "(Exhibit A / 29 p 2 Q 1-7). Intensity of the negative stereotype of these statements seems relatively low. Add to this the fact that, initially told that 'only Benjamin Sichuan and the defendant's name came "much later" (words of the nurse faculty Ltd. 998 S. 16th). 128 I find all the above in order to keep the fear, six, was affected by the negative stigma about the defendant and the same time, erode the defendant's claim that Q "from her mother heard her mother having some kind of madness I subject most of the day talking about me ... talk about me day and night" (p 1104 S. 25-26 and on page 1105 S. 8). The defendant's argument that that "poisoned" by her mother (p 1107 S. 22), is not consistent with the relatively late mentioning, with one injury event and the absence of harsh statements against the accused throughout the investigations. Which is the same list of the harm that she was at home, even if we assume a six-exposed to it, it still seems that option from her "long list of names" - 22 in all - that 'actually choose to blame the defendant, seems less . And especially since the defense claims, the list consisted of three pages, when the defendant's name appeared in the middle of the list, instead of the 12 (p 655 S. 553). It is the defendant's position in the middle of the list, also is inconsistent with the claim that the horror that was "crazy" to him and talked about him "day and night". If it was so clear, his name was listed at number 12 but gets a place of honor at the beginning of the list. 129 Furthermore, it is important to note that her investigation by the mother, that 'never asked the defendant, but all the questions focused on Benjamin Sichuan, is the character who told the mother that her children were at home. Namely, the mother's many efforts to make her daughters book, would tell what happened in Sichuan - not in the defendant - who at this point had not yet named as one of the offensive., I believe, that it has implications for the possibility raised by Professor Goshen, that since the investigation by the mother, went to the core of suggestion and swelled until ripened into a false memory (p 30 exhibit a / 31). For no apparent reason, that investigation should be planted in her mind the fact that the 'false memory about the defendant, a man whose name was not even mentioned. Subsequently, I have been convinced from her mother, that after the fainting spell, S., "I left her," and I did not press her for "and she" passed the reins "caretaker staff. As mentioned above, only five weeks later, turned Sat her mother, initiative, and began to tell what happened. According to that, thanks to the last treatment. 130 indicates that even according to whether she was trying "at all costs" cause a 'tell about the vulnerability, including sitting with Q and sisters in the room for about two hours until the end, "I released them in the room", and then, taking the Sat alone and "I did not want to give her a chance" - a position that 'the position, that does not remember. In addition, although In hearing her mother, "I know and I want you to tell me," cried S. raged for half an hour, until she passed out - still, when she woke up, was that "it does not remember. This means that the method of investigation is not borne fruit and it did not cause S. say things just to please his mother, or even just to let her mother and stop asking the same topic. As can be seen from the words of that, what motivated her to eventually start talking in general was another factor - staff nurse. Thus, the second when asked what helped her investigation she remembered, she replied: "caregiver". Even then, it was after several sessions: "Was it confidence that it has acquired, whether it was that she got used to talk about things ... always hard to understand a child's mind, it was very difficult to talk to her at first" (the words of analyst staff Ltd. 999 S. , 8-13). In particular, the defendant's name came later in treatment, "in the winter", when initially talked S. Benjamin Sichuan only "Speaking of Benjamin Sichuan then she talked about him before the July 31 [the date of the first interrogation], other names came much later "(p 998 S. 15-16 and on page 999 S. 17th). There is nothing significantly reduce the fear, the six-invented the violation of the defendant's imagination, to please her mother. 131 carried the body of her mother's questioning that, though it is clear that from its isolation in a room with three girls and then with Q alone was stressful and unusual situations, there is still, I was not impressed, as argued by counsel for the defendant, that it was "pressure of a prison "(p 1437 S. 22). well fainting spell of S. In light of questions to the mother, was not the result, in my opinion, the pressure to remember an event that was not only watched by trauma, shame and guilt attendant. Moreover, and as already I made above in the case of J, actually I did not find the mother's words have that "I know you've been you can not tell me that" because statements of what they transplanted the idea about the content of the injury itself. they just are designed to break the dam of silence, and nothing more. By the same token, also tour the neighborhood, where a question is "Where were you" and that "pointing to the houses, no raises for planting ideas about harm, and certainly not about the content of the vulnerability. matter, agreed to Prof. Goshen with the accuser's counsel, that the child saying," Come neighborhood would go home if something happened to you I would vote for him, "is legitimate and has no pollution," this court that it is disabled in all possibility, if there was such a thing, I think it's a reasonable question "(p 1305 S. 22-23) . 132 As regards the question arose whether the therapist's memory affected Sat. As mentioned above, Q was asked by the researcher how to help her nurse to remember and return "on a lot of things." As an example, she said, that the therapist told her neighbor, whose job at home is to throw out the garbage. Someday, she had no power to do so, and she put the junk closet. After one week starting garbage smell., she asked the neighbor is still not throwing out the trash and that she replied, "Yes threw out the trash", but then he began to leak out of the closet. therapist asked her: Does she want to be the one that throws the garbage bin or closet, and she says of that, it made her remember (Exhibit A / 28, p 22 S. 17-21 second recording for transcription). Counsel for the defendant argued that metaphor, that there is a high probability that it led to the 'create a false memory, because it has created an atmosphere of guilt for her. She turned According to Prof. Goshen, that the mere statement that if you tell Spinach stone core and eases it, is "the father of the infection" (p 1289 S. 14-15). However, I found that metaphor even the slightest fear of contamination or influence. My opinion is, in the words of researcher Hadas, that "this metaphor is intended to increase her motivation to cooperate if something happened, it's not meant to mix content" (p 364 S. 20-21). 133 Finally, a question of whether the version provided by the infected, I find importance attributed many signs that characterized the truth of that testimony, which I have expanded above. In my opinion, these completely remove the fear, the old things she had heard from others or things that made up a core based on rumors or information revealed to them. For probability, giving birth to age of S. succeed fabricate such a complex event, filled with a variety of unique details and authentic statements, and be able to repeat it consistently - is negligible. In fact, the rich story telling and especially its many nuances, removed all doubt as to her own testimony of evidence leading to the unequivocal conclusion that the incident had happened and that Q has experienced it herself. See also the comments of the researcher Hadas, about the possibility, that's version, because it was consistent told her several times and talked about it with some people "on those finishing touches I would indicate" ... "a child who proclaims we can get it right or something he has learned or is invented "(p 367 S. 17 prescribes 319 S. 14-15). I will add that in particular, this is correct with regard to the claim, six-spoke on the defendant with another girl, which is also in question in any case, only speculation, no grip. In this context, it should be noted, that the defendant's counsel that turned itself, that girl had not mentioned the name of the defendant in its investigations (p 420 S. 33), which has nothing to weaken the possibility of influencing it. Additionally, I agree with the researcher's impression Hadas, that it was impossible to understand the words of Q, that is talking to the other girl on the event (p 419 S. 21-22). 134 In addition to standing in front of me my impression also the researcher's impression Hadas, who found that the testimony of S. reliable despite the infection: "I do not deny that there was an infection, is not at a level that affects the reliability" (p 419 S. 9-10) . Similar claims regarding the exploration of the reduced fourth, defendant's counsel argued that the interrogation of S. researcher not professionally managed, having deepened and Asthcl pollution "minimal investigative effort" to find out what that was affected (p 1434 S. 16). Yet This argument should be rejected outright. shows clearly that the researcher was aware of the contamination and is back on this, we used a very careful and very cautious on this issue were "(p 334 S. 31). particular, which S., is also taken into account, in the period between interrogations were gatherings of parents in the neighborhood in which were mentioned the names of harm (p 353 S. 6th) and says: "It is clear that she was exposed and it is clear that in the month and a half that she heard and knew" (p 354 h , 10). before investigating the Q, it also saw the announcement of terror police was aware, she says, that is Dee will draw her daughters and instructed the nurse white flute do the above. According to the researcher, she warned before any investigation, let alone with S. six, do not know why she comes in for questioning (p 344 S. 12-18 and on page 345 S. 3-4) and after the first interrogation that, it was quiet, she said to her mother, if Q says "a little something not question her not ask her, just call us and is used to "(p 345 S. 8-9). 135 Beyond that, I was impressed that the researcher Hadas conducted an investigation in accordance with accepted professional and found a defendant's counsel contends that she asked that, leading questions and directed "that level" (p 1436 S. 22). Stated, the This argument based on the interrogation of the defendant's counsel's first Q, where, first, the researcher asked the Q Has anyone bothered her, hit her or did something in her modest body (Exhibit A / 26, p 6 Q 3 22). Sat silent and said in a whisper "no." Then, the investigator told her that she realized someone did do something indecent in her body, his house (in "23-34). Sat silent and shook her head asked if such a thing happened.Then, said no questions investigating whether someone hit her in his house, does anyone hit her with a stick, does anyone put her up against the wall, does anyone threatened her with a knife and if someone did something to her immodest Preview (Limited 7 sec 23 up by 8 Q 6). 136 However, as explained by the researcher, is a structure of inquiry the normal hierarchy determines Guide kids: first acquaintance with the child about things neutral to free him and get him to open up, then open questions and further questions that are open, based on what came to other investigations, According to the mother, and the information there: "It's part of the investigation, the child answers the question of rank one, we move on to the next, and the questions are funnel-shaped, there's nothing to do, this way" (p 347 S. 12-24, p 356 S. 9 10 See also p 924-295 article on the investigation of children mentioned above). Counsel for the defendant argued that the researcher directly contacted to ask questions directing and barely asked open-ended questions, but after watching the video of the investigation and in light of the responses to that, I am satisfied that the researcher exercised discretion correctly in this matter, and as she said, "I feel like the girl" ( in 12). has to remember that the investigator's questions came after six, had told her therapist and her mother about the vulnerability, including, revealed the contents. fact, the researcher's questions were based on the information already stated that. 137 and last regarding the merits investigation - the defendant's counsel's argument that the researcher Hadas is raised for the first time the name of the defendant, and Sat. Matter, the defendant's counsel relied on the transcript of the interrogation, which states that Q said, after the end of The event at the home of Benjamin, "They took us to another house." The researcher asked the GP to tell the whole thing in my house, and written captioning that S. told her something "not clear". Then, the researcher said, "Salman was home?" S. replied, "Not. (?) Benjamin", adding: "But so, I told you now, then they moved us to Zalman" (Exhibit A / 28, p 3 Sat 24-32 first tape transcription) . However, watching and listening to the tape itself, indicate that although she said it in a whisper (and probably that's the reason why it does not appear captioning), then six, said the name of the defendant, on its own initiative. Thus, after the words "They dressed us, took us to another house," asked Sat by the researcher "and" intend "she said softly," It was Salman house "(see 7:54 minutes into the tape itself). Researcher asked" Then, come tell me everything in the house "and that" Q "Salman" (8:04 minutes in). namely, the words of the researcher Hadas, S. "explicitly said those words, it was Salman's house. I'll certainly not anything like her, I have no interest in blame anyone if I've put so Salman Why not someone else? "(P 399 S. 10-13). Given up listening to the tape clearly and unequivocally, that S. said the name of the defendant, the defendant's counsel is directed to what I wrote in paragraph 58 regarding its investigation of D, because there was no room at all to blame for false claims researcher Hadas this topic. Above what is required, there are also words of the researcher, that is recorded naming the defendant draft pages of her, while the investigation: "Zalman I did not make that name and I certainly do not put it" (p 397 S. 28th). I note also that S. mentioned the name of the defendant, on its own initiative, prior to interrogation, that in a conversation with the therapist. 138 on the same subject, I reject the argument of counsel for the defendant, that the researcher Hadas wrote in her summary of things that were said to her by Q itself. In concluding the investigation wrote the researcher, that S. told her, she knew the defendant because he "lives in the neighborhood. Because he hurt me" and captioning, not in this answer as soon says that Q said as follows: "He lived in neighborhoods. ( It is not clear). (shakes head). probably (not clear), he also, he (not clear-murmur) ... I know him well because (not clear), because it rotates fully neighborhoods "(Exhibit A / 29 p 2 Q 1-7).However, even here, watching the tape shows that indeed, in the words of the researcher, S. said, "you know him well because he hurt me and because it rotates fully neighborhoods" (see minutes 1:50 to 2:07 the third tape from 20.9. 11). It can be seen that Q said it softly at first but then later said it clearly and loudly. In addition, I concur researcher's words, that she wrote her statement that the Q draft pages of her: "I have written pages of the draft, just write" (p 412 S. 28-30 and on page 413 S. 17th). 139 who demand assistance. I find assistance in her mind of S. When compared with one being injured, then raged, wept and fainted. As I mentioned, this point to re-experience the trauma. In addition, there is evidence of whether the change in behavior of S. After exposing the case, then, "she stopped to ponder ... stopped to sit in all sorts of corners and dream dreams" (p 830 S. 28-29) and in her words, that there has been a deterioration in Tishrei mental condition. She stopped talking, eating and back to staring into space. According to the mother, it was "very, very noticeable, even people who came from outside asked what she has" (p 831 S. 14-15). Later, she told her about another offensive. Respectively, staff nurse said that at first was that the 'calm and gentle, without the "ups and downs" but once it began to share and tell, came in a category of mild depression ", was closed, had a hard time sitting down and talking. During the year were S. ups and downs, but at the end of the year seemed getting better (p 995 S. 17-25). As mentioned above, the therapist said that as part of the vulnerability them told her that, she also talked about the defendant. In addition, there is support her version of S. minor as practiced by the other three, who gave evidence of similar acts of the defendant. 140 To sum up this charge, I determine that the version of D trusted me and that she found evidence that aid them to prove that the defendant actually committed the act attributed to him. Charges for minor m 141 I watched the videos documenting the investigation of m impressed, as a researcher of children, that his testimony was credible. Truth and logic signs were found in many, even leading me to conclude that m told about an incident he experienced himself that it is not a false memory or copying of the things he heard from others. 142 stated, M. questioned at the age of 12.5 years, an incident that occurred about 5 years ago. Systematic revision was provided, focused and flowing. Rose from her full and complete story, with all its parts of the event - beginning, middle and end - with a description of each of these stages in detail. Thus, he described how he came to Benjamin, that he left his house and saw his grandfather's house stairs children Benjamin "So I went to Benjamin," the exhibit / 10 A, p 8 S. 26-28 second recording for transcription). He also described the way to the house of Benjamin: "I climbed the stairs, I saw more children ... we went to this little trail and then went left and we got to his house" (p 9 Sat 3-5) and said that the door "was open" and entered the "fast" inner room where the defendant was while Benjamin was in the kitchen (in 6-7). The defendant told them, "Well you have come." Room were children (in 10). Referring to the event itself, was full of detailed descriptions aplenty. M. said that after the accused where the film is "moved the curtain" (p 9 h 30), the children sat on the floor (LTD 10 sec 1) and distributed the film in the middle of the accused "those with a bag of candy nylon, with a bag of food. With five candy "(p 10 Sat 7-9). At the end of the film, the defendant told them to get dressed and M. moved his clothes from a "pile of clothes" that was on the floor "and left. Anyone wearing out" (p 10 Q 30-31). At the request of the investigator, knowledge of 'list the names of the children followed up the stairs, saying that he does not remember all of them (p 11 Q 16-19). He also described that in the film were people "break-ins", as he demonstrates what wear (tank top that starts from the belly) (p 13 Q 28 and p 14 S. 12th). According to him, the accused took off his clothes (white shirt and black trousers), except shoes and socks, explaining that took my shoes and pants and then put the shoes (p 14 Q 22 and p 15 Q 4). 143 I find that the variety of information provided by these unique m, rule out the possibility invented and are a clear indication that, Ex described an incident in which he himself was present. When the researcher's words in the context of the 'true here too: If it was an event that is fancy, was changed from' pattern that he could repeat it and remember it more easily and decreases in minute detail. In addition, if it were implanted memory or copying, provider Was m unable to repeat the same information in spontaneously returned them when requested to do so by the researcher. Example, he repeated that the door was open and that Benjamin was in the kitchen ( For example, see also p 10 S. 33), that when he entered the room, the defendant and several children were already there (see for example also p 11 S. 27th), that the children sat on the floor and that the defendant gave five candy per child, after two minutes of playing, adding that the defendant brought the candy out of the closet and they were red and were distributed from a bag of food small (p 12 S. 34th to E. 13 S. 2nd). interrogator turned his attention to this, Never knew the children were warned not to tell what happened, reacted m spontaneously: "Of course we said ... do not tell and do not tell how much candy we ate here so that everyone will ask after that" (p 15 Q 20-31). agrees with the investigator when I that "the child will build his memory will tend to tell a story built and built to tell the story. Here he talked about it in a structured way, he talked about it spontaneously, was able to expand on what he requested "(p 121 S. 22-24). 144 In this context, I find refer to three specific statements of m, which were made spontaneity, indicates, in my opinion, the very authentic and unequivocal evidence, he described a situation in which present themselves. Thus, a message m, that when he entered the room, the defendant said, "Well Shgatm"o"mh he said before that I do not know" (p 11 Q 29-30). He also said that the defendant returned the bag of candy drawer, even non-left so much but he returned the bag "(p 13 Sat 7-8). Moreover, within the framework of reference event occurring with other hits, said m, that it hurts gave them candy, but "not as Salman gave us, other candies, like Momoldim" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 1 h 16 17 The third tape transcription). I find it hard to assume that these statements be said by someone who was present at the event itself. 145 the addition of a fact, that the words of meters were made in the context of the time.Thus, he said that 'we were not with him for a long time, we were ten minutes with him "(p 9 S. 21-22); That when the defendant had "talked to a couple of minutes" (in 12);Downloading clothes that lasted "Not long, a minute or so" (in 21) and that the film itself was "a short film, about five minutes" (p 10 Sat 1-2). In addition, he said m, the incident took place on a day when there were no classes, "It was in the afternoon, about two o'clock or so." In his opinion, he was 8 years old, in second grade (p 15 S. 7-16). Counsel for the defendant argued that taking into account the incident occurred five years earlier, it is difficult to accept the fact that specified at specific m said this to please the researcher. However, the words of meters indicated that he had not asked to specify an exact time as soon Specify the two-hour lunch time. says also, that there is no difficulty in the words of meters, the incident took place in the afternoon, taking note says that it was on the day when there were no classes. 146. impression of the reliability of the statement m, is also supported by, he was careful to separate the events in which he corrected himself was present and it was wrong place.Thus, in his first asked to tell about an event with Benjamin and comfortable. M told of an incident which came to the house of Benjamin and the defendant was waiting there with no clothes on and began to tell the children heresy, that "there is no God at all, there is no Torah, do not need any turn, the total book, he took Bible and threw it on the floor." M starting to continue to describe the same event, but suddenly stopped, and said that was wrong and it is not the event he was asked to speak by the researcher: "Salman started, wait, that's another time. It's not what it is now with convenient "(Exhibit A / 9A, p 13 Sat 31 to p 14 sec 10 transcription second tape). Fact, Ex corrected himself on his own initiative, indicates the desire to be as accurate as possible, and it reinforces the Reliability of things said that are the truth. dispels fear is rising from the passage of time, as well as the multitude of events that have been reported, that replaced the harm that confused or mixed between various events. You can also see that when m not remember a certain event, is did not hesitate to say so. matter of the defendant, when asked to talk about something that happened last time with the defendant, he said, that he does not remember (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 16 s 8-16 second tape transcription). Counsel for the defendant argued, that, where not remembered to tell the last time he was injured, indicates a lack of reliability, but I believe that this would indicate just the opposite. See the words: "I'm sure it was, I tell him" (Exhibit A / 9A, p 16 s 19 fourth recording for transcription). 147 Another case where corrected himself m the context of the defendant, was about he said in his first, then began to tell of an incident at the home of Benjamin, which was attended by the defendant, Noah, Benjamin, holidays and Golan. M told that they were shouting at the children and told them heretical, and holidays, put his sister on his shoulders and turned her around. At this point, the researcher said, talking about the case that some other time (Exhibit A / 9A, p 6 S. 30-34 fourth recording for transcription). The next interrogation, asked mm to talk about the incident: "You told me last time it was once Hagai, comfortable and Benjamin shouted blasphemy, and someone took your sister shoulders" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 10 Sat 32-34 The first tape transcription). However, when told of 'the incident, he did not mention the defendant. Therefore, the researcher said, "Last time you told me that Salman was her name ... Now do not you tell me all about it ... Tell me everything that was with Salman." M replied: "Salman was another time. Same time he was not." Then added, "Salman was not that so many times, but he was with me ... with me Salman was not so many times, but he was with me" (p 10 Q 10-19). 148 I believe that the return of m things he told an earlier investigation, reinforces the impression that, on the reliability of the testimony. Direct continuation, it also shows that m asked to falsely accuse defendant false accusations. Even when confused (natural thing in itself in view of the large number of events the present, multi-damage and the time elapsed until the interrogation), he did not hide it and not afraid to admit it. In his testimony, there was apparently no tendency to exaggerate the actions of the defendant to incriminate him, and when asked how many times has it happened to him "something indecent" the defendant replied, "about three times, two times. Much not me." Compare his response when asked the same question in relation to Benjamin, then replied "often" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 7 sec 27-30 second recording for transcription). Also about the event itself, not exaggerated m describing the incident as a short: "We were not a lot of time with him, we were with him ten minutes" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 9 S. 21-22 second recording for transcription). It is also important to see that m observed between participants in the event - who was active (the defendant) who passively (Benjamin, who was in the kitchen) - a distinction which also enhances the reliability of what he gave. 149 It should be noted, that the defendant's counsel argued that the incident is the subject of the indictment (Screening) and the incident in which the defendant said he heresy without clothes - are in fact the same event, and it follows that m was not consistent in his words, in view of the significant differences between the two events. however, is not at all clear to me that the basis for their claim by clear paths that two different events than they said. way, we can see that before telling meters on the screening event, the investigator asked him to continue to tell the event with heresy, but asked him to tell "about the last time you did something indecent with Salman" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 7 sec 32-33 second recording for transcription). then replied M.: "Last time it was the Golan and Benjamin, told last time. "Therefore, he asked the investigator mm to tell him" the first time that has happened to you is something indecent with Salman and tell me what happened. "Then he began to tell of 'the incident which is the subject of the indictment, the screening of the film ( my emphasis - a 'c') (p 8 Q 1 and above). indicates that the researcher is correct, that is not at all focused m incident with heresy: "I never asked him to go to the event ... Previous event have no off that last event "(p 180 S. 8th and on page 185, with 26 to 186 s, 6). 150 says, that I am aware of the apparent contradiction in the words of meters referring to a movie he had observed, so at first said, "most interested in" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 10 Sat 1 second tape transcription and 34-35 minutes for the tape itself ) but later said, "I was not interested at all ... it was not interesting to me the movie. then he divided the sweets so I made myself look at the film," because I was afraid, I do not know if he was doing something to me but ... or that would give me candy. did myself I like them all so I looked "(p 12 Q 24-26 and on page 13 S. 14-23). In addition, I am not oblivious Ex said that at the end of the film he put on his clothes and that "There were clothes on the floor," and later said that when they took their clothes, they put them "on the small table that was its name" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 10 S. 27th and on page 12 that 16 second recording for transcription).However, as I discussed at length in the case of D, the most important is whether the entire hinders reliable and whether injured significant nuclear event mask basing the subject of the indictment. I am satisfied that this is not the case of m, and that this is the most minor discrepancies, which certainly are not at the root of the matter. They do not relate to the credibility of the testimony about the nature of the screening event.Consequently, I did not find the defendant's counsel's claim is true, that the words of M., who was interested in the film, contradict its precise detail, what people wore in the movie and what happened. Clear that even if the film was not interested and tried not to look at him, He could not know what had happened at least in general terms. 151 Finally, I note that the authentic response of M. mirror images presented to it, including a picture of the defendant (the second picture posed), also supports the reliability of things. The investigator noted that while viewing photos gasped m heavily and at some point he whispered "Ugh". At the end of said order, he was afraid to go to court, preferring instead someone will (Exhibit T / 12). 152 which is the subject of pollution. Words of meters indicates that it is exposed to the atmosphere of hysteria and panic that prevailed in the neighborhood, at the highest dose.He described a sense of danger and fear walk around the neighborhood alone, and a lot of talk about it. For example, he said, that "all men are going crazy right now just because of this" and "Some people go through just because of this apartment" (Exhibit A / 9A, p 16 s fourth recording for transcription 3-4). Neighborhood children, including sisters, do not leave the house, because "Danger" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 2 Q 2) and he was very afraid to walk around in the street, because his mother told him to "be very careful" and even kidnapped a girl of twelve I'm ten and twelve years old, too, so I said I'll take care of even more "(Exhibit A / 11 A, p 12 S. Third tape transcription 22-24). Also heard that "Skippy says he needs girls, he says Motti, he needs girls. Photograph it and then sell it in the money" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 2 S. 26-27 first tape transcription). Over 153 neighborhood descriptions atmosphere, noted m hurting too many names, they heard the neighborhood children, his mother and sisters, who also warned him that damage to specific "beware of all I do not know what to do. Every day a new name" ( Exhibit A / 10 A, p 7 sec 14-15 fourth recording for transcription). Also heard calls of mothers in the neighborhood, who hit and who has to be careful: "I have heard many mothers talk ... everyone is talking about it. Noisy neighborhood. Says watch out for him, you have to confiscate it ... do not hide it even. Those living know it all "(my emphasis - a 'c') (Exhibit A 10 A, p 12 S. Fourth recording transcription 12-17). M. also knew that telling the meetings held in the neighborhood, when we discussed the removal of people from, for the reason that that they were dressed as haredim live here. " In particular, he said, that "Every Tuesday we have a meeting of the Mothers' Asked what their talking at the same gathering, said," to talk about the situation "(p 13 S. 1). 154 m added that he also heard one of his sisters tells big sister on the vulnerability itself: "I heard the stories she told" (Ben Zion, Moti and holidays) and sister also numbered to big sister List of harm it has suffered, "said What did they do to her, telling her list of harm "(Exhibit A / 10 A p 9 Sat 4-7 S. 11-17 fourth recording for transcription). The mother of M. herself said that Tisha B'Av, the two daughters have been told about the vulnerability, "m starting to tell that he knows what the girls said, he begins to tell" (my emphasis - a 'c') (p 692 S. 20 -21). 155 Specifically, for the defendant, said M., "The Son of Salman all the time even passing, shooting" and frightening children and son "had everything, he also photographed, in Skippy is taken" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 2 S 19-20 transcription recording hat 1 S. 31-32 fourth recording for transcription). Referring to one of the adults who attended a particular event, said: "He hurt himself. Injured Salman and now it affects others." He also said that his older sister told him that the defendant injured adult, noting that "Salman has been working for many years Zalman" (Exhibit A / 11 A, p 2 hours 7-17 third tape). In addition, he described m the defendant as that goes with a hat and suit, because He did not want to suspect him, he was the gardener of the synagogue. " He said that the defendant, who lived near him, raised wooden guarantee up to his house, to hide the house "not to see that children of immigrants", adding that "it is now cut off." Also said that the accused used to sleep in the synagogue (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 1 h 26 and on page 4 S. 16-25 S. 29 transcription fourth recording). M added that the defendant was "Keeper of the neighborhood" and throws "strange people who came to the neighborhood or tourists who came to her on Saturday with cameras. He heard his mother say a tourist who came to the neighborhood, that the defendant has been in jail, "and he's not a man, he was just a corrupt person" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 3 Sat 1-4 fourth recording for transcription). 156. However, after weighing things carefully and cautiously, I find that rule out the possibility, direct and indirect information is exposed to m, has affected his memory and created false memories in his mind, with regard to the incident which is the subject of the indictment. Not too impressed, because he led the meters provide a version to please the people around him. For it was evident throughout the testimony of m, that is careful to distinguish between what happened to other children and what happened to himself. For example, the question of whether something happened to him with a modest score, he replied: "I did not have., But hit my sisters." Also the question of whether something happened to him immodest with the son of the accused, said no: "No, but he is constantly rotating around us, even me is scary, I hear he is doing damage to the neighbors" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 6 Q Fourth recording transcription 8-12). Further, as noted m hurting hit list of his brothers, he could say: "They did not hurt me but I keep hearing. Way he hurt my brother, and my sister is hurt" (Limited 7 sec 8-9). Immediately afterwards, he said spontaneously: "Now another person that he was discovered, he was everywhere, me me ... it was not a grocery store ... I heard he hit my brother. Saying be careful of him" (in "11-14) . 157 shows that even Ex exposed to many statements on the identity harm, some of which struck his family - he is not attached himself to the victims of such harm, where it was not so. Repeatedly, he was careful to note that it did not hit him harm. This means that many names would not hurt them exposed to the m, lead him to falsely accuse their false accusations. In fact, as appears from the testimony, the only effect was a tightening feeling of fear and panic that it was given, and creating a constant fear that one day it will hurt too. Consequently, in our case, there is nothing even negate the specific concerns, the general atmosphere and what he heard, influenced m weave a false accusation against the defendant. Indeed, despite the negative things he had heard about the defendant, including that the defendant "has been working for many years" and hit adults, not exaggerated m the number of times injured by the defendant, but reiterated that it was' About three times, two times . much not me. " Elsewhere, after telling of an incident with the defendant, said m, that "after that many times is not it ..." He was not with me many times "(Exhibit A / 10 A, p 7 sec 27-30 and on page 16 S. 8-16 second tape transcription.) and compared versus other harm, which according to him, hit him often. meters, also made it clear that the defendant's son did not hit him. Hence, there is no indication that, exposed to infection m , caused him to increase the involvement of the accused in the case. 158 Consequently, despite hearing the sisters tell of content vulnerability and exposed to rumors of the most serious incidents - the abduction of 12-year-old girl and photographing children for money - not exaggerated m in portraying the incident with the defendant. He did not consider the defendant performing intrusive acts that the defendant touched him, or that the parent M. touch. It also said that the defendant told the kids to do as the film (as told by his sisters), nor that the defendant took them (as I told the kids in the neighborhood). He however described, the screening of a film is not modest, as the children watch it together with the accused, when everyone naked. And no more. The same repeated it, the event was short. It is important to note, that when he spoke of hurting others, described m more serious acts. There is nothing to download also significantly reduce the risk, exposed to pollution from - both environmental pollution and contamination specific about the defendant - led him to overstate the acts committed by the accused. 159 In fact, out, that when we are dealing with the defendant, denied the possibility, rumors, statements and which is exposed to the harsh atmosphere, influenced version of the meters - not the number of times that the defendant hit him and basically acts by the defendant. These two courses, despite being exposed to negative stereotypes about the defendant, he gave him a much lighter contrast acts of hurting others and insisted that, hit him a few times. All things considered, the probability that the infection was effective and influenced meters - is quite low. This is my high opinion also join the many signs of the truth that characterized the testimony of m, which stood at length above. These also remove the fear, Ex ancient things he had heard from other kids or that invented things based on rumors Malibu them exposed. As mentioned above, the probability that a child's age than was unable to repeat them constantly and just returned them, is zero. The same question, is it possible, denying the unique information provided by M. statements of authenticity, be said by those who have not experienced the things that personally. 160 the addition of a researcher's impression when, who found M. reliably despite the pollution it was exposed. However, given the great number of criteria that were held in his case: "Although the impact I think his words were unreliable" (p 125, 21). Browse the investigation shows that all along, when the researcher checked thoroughly and carefully, from what information is exposed, and when it was. He spent a significant portion of pollution investigations and questioned the meters until the end, what information he knew personal knowledge and what information he heard from others. I have been convinced by his words, that the second stage of the evaluation of the reliability of m, is considered professionally and carefully the issues of pollution and it was in front of him all the time: "I take it that the parents questioned them questions suggestive about it., I take it that he told his sister Before he came in for questioning ... and so, in light of the insane amount of criteria that in this case ... I take it that what you say is the worst case happened, even more than what you say "(p 102 S. 25 E. 103 Q 4). The defendant's counsel that the Plan, the investigator did not mention the pollution factors in evaluating the reliability wrote, but, as noted, there is no doubt in my mind that he took them into account and I accept his explanation in this regard: "The mere writing of reliability relating to pollution, even if they do not write the The word pollution or impact in reliability, as I write reliability I write that although infection language noted the summary in the things that the child tells me or other things, I believe that the words of the child trust "(p 210 S. 31 to E. 211 S. 4th). 161 and last in this matter and is, investigations of M. by his parents and his older sister, before his interrogation by Investigator children. There is no dispute that they asked M. Was in Binyamin Ben-Zion (see remarks whether Ltd. 711 S. 24th). However, I was impressed, because parents and older sister is not planted in the mind of M. ideas for possible injuries put through their words and content of the injury itself. In particular, I did not have to accept the argument of counsel for the defendant, that his conversation with the older sister was preparing and briefing prior to questioning by an investigator children and I am satisfied that this was but a conversation in which he told her about the number of injuries experienced. That I learned from the words of M. himself. After handing the researcher, said that his little sister big sister List of hurt "because she wanted to know before going to the researcher to have a neat", was asked whether he himself told anyone what had happened, to "be organized before you talk to me". M replied: "I told three stories, and more. Else I have been told." Question of the researcher, is the nurse asked him questions when he told her things, did M., "no., I just told her.'s No questions asked., I just told what happened to me" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 9 Sat 15 28 and on page 10 that 'fourth recording for transcription 12-14). 162 I find that these words of meters combine with the authentic words of his mother, that M. was her own initiative and Powers said it all, "adding that she does not know if he told all happened, because" he saw how it that saddens us, but I believe he told the interrogator more children "(p 695 S. 5-7). The fact that throughout the investigations, made no secret of 'investigating the sources of his knowledge and told them of his own initiative, also reinforces the impression that if you were exposed to M. actual information content of the vulnerability of his parents or his older sister, he would tell it. Aside, I will note that I did not find even a trace of a argument raised by counsel for the defendant, that was operated from click-violence, to tell what happened. Excerpt from the interrogation of 'referred to, shows that M. said beatings from his parents, but only that "got them" the behavior was wrong and they caught him stealing (under the effect of damaging said he did not need to hear the voices of parents) (Exhibit A / 9A, Ltd. 7 sec 24-25 first tape transcription). 163 Therefore, I reject the defendant's counsel's arguments regarding the impact of environmental pollution and the testimony of the specific m., I am satisfied that the testimony of the incident which is the subject of the indictment, which was independent evidence is not tainted by pollution. 164. who demand aid, I find that this takes place in the words of the mother, the change in behavior of M. injury after exposure. She reported that m used to wet the bed every night, until the age of 12, and after he was told about the vulnerability, "After just a short time is just weaned, anything, if there was not, and by then it was just terrible all night" (p 694 S. 8-10). In addition, she said, until he told about what happened, it was from a stop and soon as he got out and said and was encouraged and instructed how and what to do now he gets another kid, he just took out the heart of what was sitting there "(p 693 S. 10-15) .Impressed her words and showed great authentic testimony. So, for example, reported that among girls actually increased the pressure after they said ("The pressure is getting terrible" ... "The girls shaking" threats happen to them something if counted), whereas in M. It was upside down and then he said "he did not feel Fears "(p 718 S. 17-22). Also there are words that when said m what happened, "he talked and cried and talked and cried" (p 693 S. 28th). In addition, there is a support system as practiced by three other minors. 165th sum up this charge, I determine that the version of M. trusted me and that she found evidence that aid them to prove that the defendant actually committed the act attributed to him. The defendant's version 166 stated, in his defense, the defendant raised the argument that he was a victim of a witch hunt "against the backdrop of a neighborhood hysteria after the start of the investigation of the case. He claimed that residents blamed anyone unusual in the neighborhood and him personally, because he was divorced, who lives alone. In this regard, referred to the suspects made by the mother of Q, which characterizes the listed therein, he being exceptional people in the neighborhood. In particular, the story of harassment convert who turned 70 years old who lived in the neighborhood, her claims that she is trying to move children to Christianity. However, this version is incompatible with the defendant's own words, which shows that he was not an alien element in the neighborhood. Thus, testified that since coming to the neighborhood about 19 years ago, he won a warm embrace neighborhood veterans and became a dominant: "Whenever an issue arose which are usually on the agenda, because of her closeness to the veterans in my neighborhood so I was really wishing I address this handle" (p 1027 S. 17-23). He also stated that when the phenomenon began Selichot tours of the neighborhood, the neighborhood rabbis asked him, will coordinate all activities with tourists (in 29 and on page 1028 S. 1). In terms of dress, confirmed the defendant, that he used to walk around dressed as usual in the neighborhood - a suit, a white shirt and a black skullcap - and put away, saying that he certified rabbi and called to the Torah in the synagogue (p 1065 S. 5-13 and on page 1072 S. 17 -21). These also join any of the defendant's statements, the success has earned Double consultant occupation. 167 It is clear that these are not consistent with the claim of the defendant, that has become a scapegoat for being divorced and especially because, he says, he began the process of his divorce about six months after he arrived in the neighborhood, and soon lived there alone (Exhibit A / 36 in 15). Moreover, referring to the family of M., who lives next door to him, said the defendant, that were to expel the family from the neighborhood, and he organized all the neighbors in the building to sign the request to allow them to stay: "I think some of Tina's family to was the moment they saw that I had the power to mobilize the whole neighborhood to help them, that they themselves could not do "(my emphasis - a 'c') (p 1031 S. 18-20). He added that the family of m used to grab his place in the synagogue to synagogue managers' noticed it and stopped it "(in" 30-31). 168 emerges from the above, that the defendant's view of himself, his divorce had no effect at all on the reference to the neighborhood - not the rabbis and community leaders among the residents themselves. Moreover, his claim that there cherish him thanks for his assistance, has developed a family of m grudge against him, is not consistent with common sense. There is also a note that the argument about the constant tension between him and his family of m, is inconsistent with the statement that the family received packet delivery "Usually after Purim", gave them his own and participated shipping Torah at their home (p 1036 Q 1 S. 17 prescribes, 1074 S. 12). In fact, these words fit well with the testimony of the mother of M., was compelling, honest and reliable, that the defendant was neighbors with "nothing special. Neither here nor there" (p 686 S. 11th). Is even added that the tour he gave the defendant the neighborhood tourists were not liking that fig tree cultivated "extremely bothered us ... He takes figs all the time and stepping, and gets dirty horrible and really hid us the window and hid neighbors the view. This tree just suffered him "(p 745 S. 3-6). Still, it is not confronted with the defendant that they were not at odds (p 687 S. 25 and on page 745 S. 13th). 169 The defendant's claim that created animosity toward him because of his work in organizing neighborhood patrols forgiveness secular groups of tourists, a claim that has no basis of Mms.hnashm claimed that this activity has led to a general poison "him or talking about him in the neighborhood as" a kind of Monster because my engagements with the tourists' "must have for every child who came to hear bad things about me" (p 1050 S. 24-25 and on page 1084 S. 13-18). However, it is not clear how this argument is consistent with the other claim, that the rabbis of the neighborhood are the ones I asked for I shall concentrate all activities with tourists "(p 1027 S. 29 prescribes, 1028 S. 1st).Possibility, inhabitants of the neighborhood will resemble a monster messenger neighborhood rabbis, seems remote to nil. It seems that not so, the defendant would not reveal the names of the neighborhood rabbis claimed supported him and reason, that he did so in order not to hurt them, is not convincing (p 1086 S. 22-23). In addition, the defendant said that the attempt to establish a framework of meetings with Orthodox youth established a secular public "loud noise" (p 1077 S. 1), but also has the same issue said that "it was some sort of disconnect between me and the other party, not from any neighborhood, but there were three or four people in the neighborhood would be very opposed to that of bringing together activities edges nation "(my emphasis - a 'c') (p 1076 S. 31 to E. 1077 S. 2). That is, even here contradicted himself: on the one hand, he said, that three or four people who were opposed to its operations, and on the other hand, he said, it made him "general toxicity". 170 Moreover, according to the defendant himself, he stopped his concentration with the tourists 12 years ago, in view of the reactions of local residents (occupation began 19 years ago) (p 1085 S. 4). His attempt to establish a youth meetings with community orthodox secular "was dropped" because of this resistance (p 1077 S. 4). Since then, the defendant moved to engage in coaching and is rarely the presence in the neighborhood, "because I'd played in another in another place" (p 1077 S. 5-6). Over time there is a 12-year deal since he stopped defendant Selichot tours to dissolve his claim that he harassed residents due to this activity. Unlikely, due to the practice of it stopped 12 years ago - after responding to the request of residents in this regard - they Ialilo about the making of the most serious acts of sexual abuse of minors. Defendant's words, that he stopped his involvement in tourism since he kept a low profile and had little presence in the neighborhood, also greatly weaken the possibility, inhabitants "sign" it. Why should a person take care of the residents for the past 12 years is hardly a neighborhood? Says, further cross-examination that the defendant changed his story and claimed that he continued to engage in tourism "rarely" and that there were two cases in which the set with guides to learn about the neighborhood (p 1100 S. 1-2 occupier '31). However, this argument also remains a mere claim, and he did not support it in any way (so, for example, would indicate the same tour guides). It stands in stark contrast to what he gave earlier, that he stopped dealing in the field of tourism, especially the things he told police, "I rarely found except in the neighborhood to come to bed and sometimes on Saturdays" (Exhibit A 36 / S. 24). 171. Another argument heard from the mouth of the defendant, was that his ex-wife chases him and incited local residents against him, so using "long arm" and friend for years - that's horror. He claimed that his ex-wife suffers from severe psychiatric disorders, but did not present a single shred of evidence to support it. Moreover, this argument can not coexist with the words, that his ex-wife had custody of their three children. The explanation provided by this situation, whereby most of the CPOs themselves suffer from mental disorder and that his ex-wife advised CPOs expulsion (p 1067 S. 16-18 and on page 1068 S. 29-30) - was no less despicable. In general, the defendant's testimony was not consistent, leaving a negative impression. 172 Consequently, even though he claimed that his son told him, his ex-wife and the mother of Q were in contact at least once or twice a week and that the mother of S. tried to "find all kinds of ways to defame me," he did not bring him to testify in this matter.Similarly, despite he says, that "more people favored me all the time," they told him, her mother of S. "constantly denigrates you, constantly attacking you" (p 1033 S. 21 to E. 1034 S. 3) - is not One of them has even testify to that. Given the strength of evidence was stated to verify or disprove the defendant's version, I assert that the failure to bring to one about it even - and especially his son - weakens his story about a plot concocted against him and works his duty. The explanation provided by counsel for the defendant, that the defendant did not want his son will be "one more time crisis" and that "he should not see this torture before his eyes" (p 1114 S. 9th and on page 529 S. 32) - can not let your mind . most puzzling, why people will avoid facing such serious charges, testify to his son - the subject that might help him dramatically. context it is also important to note that this is not a young child, but a guy 26 years old (p 1033 S. 13 ). 173. conclusion is, that the defendant did not testify because his son had no such evidence to prove the claim of helping him plot concocted against him. And here are appropriate words of Justice vs. oral 2098/08 real pharaonic v State of Israel (given on 28.12.11): "Avoiding the presentation of evidence place required by the internal logic of the present case is circumstantial evidence incriminating the defendant's duty operating ... sometimes, the way the director of the interest of a party the court may incriminate him, in many ways similar to circumstantial evidence. Behavior in such a matter, in the absence of an explanation credible and Sbir- operates's obligation adopts it "(ibid, paragraph 7 '). Additionally, the claim of the defendant, because he feared for the lives of those who testify in his favor, remains a mere claim, which has no support. Particular, speculation raised, that his partner in a tourist was killed, because "for such a person to commit suicide it absurd that I knew him" (p 1079 S. 8) and Hasbro surreal and disturbing, that the police chose not to prosecute the mother of S. charged with his death (in 10 -11). 174 Moreover, not only the version provided by the defendant about his persecution by his ex-wife and mother by the h - is not supported any evidence of it, then it is weakened even more given his name as affecting only came relatively late in a low-key compared to others, and He also appeared in the middle of the list of harm's mother wrote that, in 12th place, and not at the beginning. If he claims the defendant, was "Mommy I whimsy subject most of the day talking to me", it is clear that this was reflected in the list conducted (p 1104 S. 25-26 and on page 1105 S. 8). I believe that all of these dissolving the claim fear of persecution by S. supporters version, which was reliable and balanced, that was true at the time in connection with the defendant's ex-wife, but the two were not close friends, but "it was like all the members of a neighborhood." After the departure of the neighborhood divorcee, is not kept in touch with her (p 964 S. 24-26). 175 Consequently, the argument of the plot lacks any basis when we are dealing with in their family of J. D.. Reduced D, all is not a resident of the neighborhood and for the family of J., the defendant himself agreed that this is a relatively new family in the neighborhood, he never knew and only saw the father of the family "here and there" (p 1035 S. 3). The defendant claimed that his family of the "Tourism was the topic of much pain from another" (p 1099 S. 13-14), but why all the anger Hifan this regard specifically to the defendant, which, even according to his, he continued to engage in tourism only "rarely" and it's hard to find in the neighborhood? The mysterious disappearance of his home and office computers of defendant 176 He contends that the defendant's ramshackle plot concocted about him, which was paved with contradictions, joins the sudden disappearance of his home computer (in Nachlaot) and office (general building), next to his arrest. Thus, a search of his office on 19/09/11, it was found that the accused had disappeared from his office computer drive, when the left screen, speakers, mouse and keyboard (see Exhibit T / 52). Office, there were no signs of forced entry and the defendant himself could not explain the disappearance of the computer drive alone (Exhibit A / 35 S. 69). So, even though he claimed that "I only have one computer", in the office, immediately thereafter, the question of the researcher, "Your son said you had two computers," the defendant replied that his son would not have access to "My Computer" (Exhibit A / 35 S. 65 and S. 73-74). Further investigation, claiming that he has no idea what a computer was his son, but immediately afterwards he said: "I know that there is a laptop computer" (Exhibit A / 36 S. 128-133).Subsequently, the investigator testified holy, because on 07/09/11, a few days before the arrest of the accused (on 09/15/11), the defendant's son filed a complaint (at 1:00 AM), that, had stolen his computer at home, "as well no signs of forced entry, no nothing, he said the computers disappeared ... did not talk anything about the firm itself "(p 481 S. 14-19 and on page 545 S. 32). The son also told the investigator that he was in no valuable property was taken (p 524 S. 21). 177. as noted, this important issue, not the defendant's son testified in court and here, argument that the child does not have to "stand in such a situation" (p 529 S. 29) does not provide, given the strength of the evidence that was supposed to help the defendant if not turned off. However, given the absence of signs of a break (office and home); Timing incriminatory it disappeared computers (near the arrest); Simultaneous disappearance of both computers and home office, despite the distance between them (the office is in the building at which the defendant lives in Nachlaot); The words of the defendant, that the only son and he has a key to the house and the words of the child from his investigation, that "the son of Salman all the time even passing, shooting" and frightening children and son "had everything, he also photographed, in Skippy is taken" (Exhibit A / 10 A, p 2 S. 19-20 hat recording transcription 1 S. 31-32 fourth recording for transcription). 178 I find that the defendant's failure to testify to us to disprove all these works and reinforces the obligation impression that, that is responsible for the disappearance of computers, in order to hide incriminating material that would have "common law is that refraining from inviting testimony of to protection, which, according to the dictates of common sense may have contributed to the discovery of the truth, creates the assumption that his words had been working to strengthen the incriminating version, which advocates claim "(words of the Honorable Justice M. Ben-Porat oral 437/82 Salomon v State of Israel (given on 04/06/83), Paragraph 4 (f).) See also the 'Front in his evidence - Court ruling mirror, Part IV, Hts"a 2009, p 1889: "The more significant the evidence, the court may conclude in May presenting more decisive conclusions more radical, anti-who denied showing it. " So do not ignore the words of the defendant, that before his trip to South Africa, he took material from your own mobile disc (p 1113 S. 16). I will add, that the defendant made the point, that the residents of Nachlaot are breaking into his apartment, adding that it is possible to enter the apartment through the roof without leaving marks (p 1119 S. 8-9). However, this does not explain how they came into office with no signs of forced entry. 179. place to say, that I did not find nothing wrong with the search conducted at the home and office of the defendant. In this matter, there is a report of the investigator whole operation holy day 9.26.11 at 18:45, in which he wrote that after the defendant and his son refused to be present in the search "and after speaking with a lawyer who agreed to Zalman Cohen" - he took, along with researcher Jacob friends, the apartment video "from opening the door to closing the door" (Exhibit A / 34 and on page 565 S. 561-563). should be noted that this memorandum side, there is a memorandum from the same day and at a nearby (at 17: 00), which states that the defendant refused to accompany us to search the apartment and that the defendant's counsel who said that she had to join to search the apartment and she would try to find someone (Exhibit N / 12). 180 Finally, do not ignore the words of the defendant, that previously went to see a psychiatrist, whether he has the characteristics of a pedophile. He said he did this to make sure that if I take responsibility to represent a method of treatment, I do not have anything in my closet that I have not seen "(p 1069 S. 19-20 and on page 1070 S. 4-8).The most puzzling, why specifically asked to check whether it has the characteristics of a pedophile? Why not asked to check whether it has the characteristics of other disorders? Summary 181 I states that have been shown to me factual elements of the offense of making indecent acts attributed to the accused and that there was a demand for assistance regarding any of the events attributed to him. That the mental element of the offense, to prove one of three alternatives: (a) The purpose of the act was for the purpose of sexual stimulation makes (b) The purpose of the act was for the purpose of sexual gratification of the doer (c) The purpose of the act was to cause the victim's sexual-humiliation. It is established that the "thoughts and intentions of the accused are studied by means of drawing conclusions from the facts proven, through examination sensible balance sheets" (according 5757/00 Doe v State of Israel, given on 2:10:10, paragraph 2.) In our case, This intention is learned from actions by the defendant. they can not be attributed any meaning other than sexual meaning and the conclusion is that they were made for sexual stimulation or gratification. 182 In addition, I state that has been shown me the actus reus of the crime of coerced testimony by way of threats, that the defendant threatened with a toy gun, not to tell his parents what had happened and scared him, stated that children did - were killed. As is well known, is gone, suborning the investigation "does not need to be held investigation, suffice it clear to the defendant under the circumstances that would lead an investigation complaint" (the words of Mr. President A. Barak oral Doe v State of Israel, given on 06/03/00, paragraph 5). clear that if the number of Y. parents about what happened, would lead to this certain police investigation (as happened last.) Yes there is a demand for assistance (external evidence, complication in the defendant is The disagreement): toy gun seized the office of the defendant and the Emirates of the mother, the words of the 'after revealing to her injury, "said we were moving on Sunday, he would kill me if he knows I was talking about" (p 781 S. 5-9) ... "is very fear of response Zalman Cohen and the rest of the people "(p 772 S. 23-29). Accordingly, the conditions for convicting the accused in the offense of impeachment. 183 Therefore, I have convicted the defendant of committing the following offenses: Three counts of indecent acts with minors under 16 years, not the consent of free, under section 348 (b) In section 345 (b) (1) and in the circumstances of section 345 (a) (1) of the Act (for minors D, J and to formula). Offense of indecent assault against a minor under the age of 14 years, pursuant to section 348 (a) In section 345 (a) (3) of the Act (for minor m). Crime of coerced testimony by way of intimidation, under section 245 (b) (for the minor). Given day, the Tammuz Tsha"d, 07.08.2014, in the presence of the parties 1 of 3