Here is a court document for Zalman Cohen that discusses his alleged sex abuse of minor children in the Nachlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel.
Illustration
What follows is a very loose translation sent me by a reader who got it from Google's translation feature. Note the mention of a Chabad yeshiva near the end of the document (I'm told it's a messianist Chabad yeshiva, not part of the "official" Chabad yeshiva system). After the translation the entire Hebrew court document is posted as a PDF file:
The Jerusalem District Court
MT 55287-09-11 State of Israel v. Cohen (prisoner)
Request Number: 1
Before the Honorable Judge Orit act - Gabbay
Applicant Zalman Cohen (prisoner)
Represented by attorney Gilad waves
Against
Respondent State of Israel
By the Jerusalem District Attorney (Criminal)
Represented by Attorney Shlomit Ben-Itzhak
Decision
1. Before a request to order the arrest of the respondent until the end of legal proceedings against him.
2. Respondent was charged in the indictment attributes to himthree counts of indecent acts with minors under 16 years of free consent that, pursuant to sections 348 (b) In sections 345(b) (1) and 345 (a) (1) Penal Law "M 1977 (hereinafter: the Penal Code), and the offense of suborning an investigation by means of threats, under section 245 (b) of the Penal Code.
According to the indictment, respondent committed indecent acts with three minors who lived in his neighborhood, City Center.
In relation to a minor D., born 4 / 2003, respondent was a partner in carrying out indecent acts by another (BenjaminSichuan, below: Sichuan) the other's house, in 2009.Respondent was present in the same house and watched the other when the latter ordered to wed and other kids to lie downnaked and spread their legs, over and over, and made themindecent acts.
Respect to J, born 9 / 2001, in 2010, ordered respondent to J.and his brother to get home. Respondent undressed andwalked around naked at home and instructed to J take off his clothes. J. did so after respondent slapped him. Respondent ordered to Y. touch the penis of the respondent, and J did. Respondent then pinched his penis of Y. For half a minute. J tried to escape from the respondent, but respondent grabbed him and told him to lie on the bed, face down. Y. lay so many minutes, and then the respondent dismissed him. At another time came Y. Ben-Zion's house fruit - our own (the fruit - our own), there were also respondent and others. There were other children, and the respondent and others ordered them in pairs. J went with another girl named minister. Respondent told the two children to undress and touch each other's genitals, and lie beside each other, otherwise hit them. They did as he said, and he photographed them. Respondent then threatened with a BB gun on two men who did not tell about it, if not kill them, because the children told were killed.
Which for q, born 5 / 2002, sometime in 2010 came to the respondent with her friend. Respondent told her to go into the bathroom and undress, and did so himself. He ordered her to put her feet on both sides of the tub, put a stick between her legs, leaned on him and touched his genitals while he was hurting her and tells her to stay. Then he ordered her to touch his penis and she did so for a minute. Respondent then took the Q of the bath, put in the friend, and then again Sat.Respondent asked her to lie on her stomach and spread her legs, put on her stick, while he forbids her to scream, and when leaning on the cane made her scratch her foot bleeding.Respondent said to q and her friend that they must be careful not to see them coming out of his house.
3. Counsel for Respondent disputed the existence of prima facie evidence and arguments raised many doubts and contradictions in the testimonies of children before researchers kids. She also presented an expert opinion of Dr. Tamar Cohen, engaged in sexual abuse of children over 35 years, in Israel and abroad, and She served for many years as manager Meital, an Israeli center for sexual abuse of children.Opinions include detailed analysis of children's versions and evaluation of the reliability Grsotihm.
4. I received many documents from the investigation as well as additional material from the defense, and after reviewing all of this I am satisfied that the alleged evidentiary basis was laid to establish the offenses attributed to the respondent. I will mention, that at detention Court examines evidence that crude yet stood the test of cross-examination and has not yet confronted in the face of evidence to the defense. "Therefore,
.This intermediate stage, the Court examines the potential evidential proof is in every piece of evidence, and the majority of evidence, and seeks to assess whether the processing of evidence in criminal proceedings, there is a reasonable chance that they will get that the accused be found guilty and convicted ... "(CrimApp 5858 / 05 Abu Amra v. State of Israel, dated 7/14/05, from the Honorable Judge Arbel). We should also mention that in a hearing request remand court does not perform "delicate surgery" of the evidence, but "initial prognosis - prima facie" case of the prospects of conviction, based on existing evidence (CrimApp 696/04 Sabih v. The State of Israel, dated 2/11/04, from the Honorable Judge animals). However, where the Court is having "... contradictions or paradox visible on their faces or ...Presentation of basic defects and their reason, which could reduce substantially seemingly weight of the evidence ... "(BS 322/80 State of Israel v. Yehiam Ohana, PD (1) 359, 362 (----)), had to give it weight in evaluating the evidence and bring it in consideration when considering the possibility of releasing the respondent to an alternative to detention.
Here Babar stood.
5. Which to wed, the first inquiry was held on 10/08/11 and addressed indecent acts committed by her and other boys and girls Sichuan and fruit - our own against any one of them was charged separately, as well as other suspects against whom no charges were filed. Only in advanced stages of the investigation said Wednesday that the Respondent was in place "but he just looked at" (p. 15 to the second part of the recording). Wednesday described the respondent as having appeared orthodox, but he "freedom" (page 18 to the second part). The second investigation mentioned wed the respondent as that told her and others to remove their clothing (p. 15-14). On 9/19/11 was presented to the Fourth Respondent's picture and she said he "seemed to me Salman" and added that she sees him "many times" when she goes to her cousins' and he looked really Orthodox ". When asked to talk about her acquaintance with him, said Wednesday that he was in Sichuan and was looking at her and other children. D explained that she identifies the respondent by his attire (ultra) and face. A girl of eight when its inquiry, which relates to situations that occurred while she was about 5.
6. As for J, the adult complainants in this case, about 10 at the inquest, his first interrogation on 11.8.11 addressed Y. Who 'living bridge over ", which told him and another girl to undress and touch the genitals of one second and lie about each other, and said he had a special group and cameras on the roof that could see the whole neighborhood and he could hear "If we say that our parents" (p. 5). All this, "Eighteen months ago". J. added that about a month ago he went to the same man with his two brothers, then he "touched me that my twinge" (p. 6), gave him - to - J - hard and caught him in the leg to prevent him from going, and then said him to get dressed and go. The comments were made immediately at the beginning of the investigation, and Y. said: "This whole story." Described later in Y. More molesting, including sodomy, which has been the home of Perry - ours by others. The second investigation, on 8/18/11, said I. immediately initiated an investigation that he knows what the name of "this man who lived at the bridge over" (p. 1), and added that "my friend told me that your so called" (p. 5 ). J. described that was with other children in the home of Sichuan, and how were the boys and girls who were in couples referred to rooms in the house, and he was the spouse of the Minister, and went with her into the room, "and it reached us it was Zalman Cohen, he lived at the bridge over" (p. 5). J. added that the respondent told him Val - Minister 'to touch the genitals of this he came with a small gun "with this case" and told them not to reveal anything to the parents. That his feelings at the time, when the Minister, lay on him, said I. He could not talk "... that I was lying on her stomach just like my breathing was stronger than that and we were not allowed to talk" (p. 12). J also added that the Respondent took him and the Minister, and left the camera in the room even when he went out. However, when asked J to describe the minister's genitals, touched him, described him as a boy's penis and said he was "just like any human being" (page 13 of the second part).
Further investigation, when asked J by Respondent told the investigator about Y. How a conversation with another child, a friend, he discovered the Respondent's name, and added that his house a month before the investigation. When he arrived with his two brothers, there were two other children, he named names, "has abstract" (p. 19 of the second part). The respondent told me, undress and Cshlh refused slapped him twice then dropped it. Meanwhile, another respondent said the other children to get dressed and go. Respondent then left for half an hour and when he told me to 'dress up and go. Also the brother of J out. J did not specify at all the issue mentioned genital touching the first investigation, and did so only after the investigator
Reminded him of it. When describing Y. how touched his penis of the respondent, pointed out that respondent had touched fast but "going over" (p. 11 to the third part of the recording), but J did not agree, on purpose (p. 12 to the third part). On the other hand, the respondent punched Y. penis "a lot of time like that, strong" (page 13 to the third part). Then described Y. The rest of the details of the indictment. J. added that when he touched his penis of the respondent (which he called "doing") is "becoming stronger" (p. 17 to the third part).When asked J to describe the Respondent's home did not mention the possibility to go to the second floor and said that there was in bed. However, from a photographic documentation of the search conducted at the respondent after the opening of the investigation can be seen that the first floor of the apartment is not all a bed which is found only on the second floor, where there are bedrooms. The first floor has a kitchen, living room and bathrooms (including bath). I will note that I found in the investigation file relating to whether at some point there was a bed on the first floor respondent. On 9/18/11 questioned Y. relation to sexual abuse that have been taken by others, and after the investigation identified the pictures of the respondent and another person.
7. The first investigation of q, 9 at the inquest, on 7/31/11 denied any child sexual abuse it. Investigation dated 9/19/11 described second S. Sexual abuse at the hands of
Perry - our own home. Only a third investigation from 9/20/11 mentioned that 'the first time the respondent. She described an event of sexual abuse made her home of Sichuan, the extension was brought by Sichuan, with her friend, that q Female behalf, the respondent's home. Q describing the respondent's house is consistent with the disk shows the house is on describing the search made him by the police.The child could tell that inside the house steps with immigrants to the second floor. Q described the aforesaid acts in the indictment occurred in the bathroom and described how the respondent said she and her friend go to the second floor, there was a bed. According to her, on the second floor also had a computer and showed them films respondent football. Q investigation identified respondent's photograph, as well as pictures of fruit - ours Ostz, and said it was "Salman". She recognized him, "according to the Interior". When asked about her familiarity with him, said he was "living in the neighborhood. Also because he hit me." I will note that in regard to events at the home of Perry - own them revealed that 'the first investigation, said that' the sexual acts done to it in the bathroom, then told her fruit - one of us lying in the bath and he sat on it. In addition, Q told at that time used a stick (to beat
The q and to strike the
Perry - our own).
8. The three victims of these crimes in the indictment are young children, the biggest of which is about 10 years, many events relating to investigations, at different times during 2010 to 2006, involving more people, including Sichuan and fruit - our own, have harmed them and other children. The three children also reminded the Respondent as set forth in the indictment and recognized his picture. Counsel for the applicant should indicate that the prosecution used very carefully and from dozens of investigations conducted and the names of children of suspects who, charges were filed only against the three (Perry - ours, Sichuan and Respondent.) Requesting counsel added that the prosecutor known private investigations performed in City Center by local residents and "pollution" of the children's conversations evidence among themselves and between them and their parents and other adults in their environment. Therefore, the prosecution used very carefully and sparingly indictments filed, only against those who found them testimonies to children clearly believed their reliability and also include identification of offenders. That the respondent, investigators believed the reliability of children D., Y. and S. High is enough at this stage to establish prima facie evidence.
Counsel for the respondent argued that there is no permanence reliability of investigators kids on what paper and counted many difficulties affordability versions of children and criticized how the investigation, using the opinion of Dr. Tamar Cohen, mentioned above.
9. Reading the transcripts of interrogations with respect to the respondent, particularly with regard to J and Q, can be seen in those who base the charges alleged. Descriptions which were given a high reliability estimates by researchers of children, are adept at this kind Da. I will add that support for the right words of Q can be found B"frtim Hmochmanim "her words about his description of the respondent. Respondent denied outright announcements that children visited his home, so the apartment description from q adds to her high degree of reliability. The same applied to the words of J. inquiries about his feelings while performing sexual acts in it. That the gun used in the case of Y. search turned the requesting counsel's office made the respondent there were, among others, a toy gun, handcuffs, masks
And other accessories Respondent claimed that he does use them as a therapist to couples. Respondent said about the gun that he keeps plastic guns "to married couples demonstrate how they fight" (a message dated 9/19/11, line 203). In addition, the respondent confirmed that he cultivates the willow trees in the neighborhood (where, in rows 170-169).This figure is consistent with the words of Y. investigation dated 8/18/11 (on page 2 to the third part) about the meeting with the Respondent did so.
However, along with an impression that can also indicate weaknesses in the testimonies, such as descriptions of J's genitals girl it touched; that he said that there is a bed in the house of the respondent did not mention the possibility to go to the second floor by stairs inside; description of sexual acts made on q in the bath and the degree Hitcnotm; absence of evidence similar to that of q from friend to the event stated in the indictment; absence of evidence to support the comments of Y. As for acts carried out in both the home of Perry - ours and the home of the respondent, they were partners in childrenand the other girls, and the like. We should also mention that these are young children, their community was forbidden, which describe complex events, both in content and in terms of children and adults involved in them, which occurred at different times in the past when they were younger still.
Furthermore, because the PC computer drives the Respondent's office disappeared and so did the respondent held laptop at home. In this context, I will note that the respondent denied his possession was a notebook PC (post of 22/09/11, rows 154-150), but his statement gave us different information. Son reported that the father Avenue was broken and the laptop was stolen. Requesting raises doubts whether the complaint is accurate and suggest that computer obliterated the respondent's house to prevent the police to access the computer drives as well as the respondent's work place.
Similar apartments in the neighborhood and a lot in my apartment apartments similar to "(a message dated 9/22/11, row 94).
11. On the basis of the above come to the conclusion that the applicant presented a prima facie evidentiary basis respondent's guilt these offenses in the indictment, although, as noted, can also indicate the difficulties inherent with the evidence based solely on the testimony of the complainants against children investigators. I do not think that the same difficulties they pointed up to "contradictory or postcards fallacy" or "fundamental flaws" with the evidence, but it is data that take into account the above considerations in deciding request detention until the end of proceedings.
12. Which cause of detention, it is by virtue of the acts allegedly committed by the respondent. However, given the evidentiary difficulties stood above them, the lack of criminal record and the fact that the offenses attributed to the defendant allegedly committed in 2010 to 2009, I thought that there is to explore the possibility to order the release of an appropriate alternative to detention.
To do this test service should conduct a survey of detention and to relate the degree of dangerousness which arises from the respondent and can lift using an alternative to detention.The test service will give him, among other things, the alternative proposed by the respondent on the Chabad Yeshiva in Be'er Sheva ghetto rebels, allegedly used a familiar alternative to detention.
Further hearing was set before the day 13:12:11 at 13:30.
Respondent brought from detention on the said date.
The probation report will be submitted to the court until 12:12:11.
Given day, Wednesday Kislev Tsha"b, 30 November 2011, the presence of the applicant and his counsel on his and counsel for the respondent.
Orit Efal Gabai 54,678,313 - /
5467831354678313 Secretariat shall provide a copy of the decision - and a copy of the minutes of the discussion from11/24/11 - Adult Probation Service.
Orit Efal Gabai, Judge
Text of this document is subject to changes in wording and editing
About editing and document changes in case law, legislationand Nevo site - click here
The entire document in Hebrew as a PDF file:
Download Zalman Cohen Court Document Nachlaot Pedophilia Case 11-2011