Ramle Magistrate Court Judge Menachem Schneur Hai Israel Mizrahi convicted a teacher at a school in the city of Lod accused of sexual harassment, extortion by threats and indecent assault on a minor after he impersonated a boy, sent the minors a nude video and demanded pictures of a sexual nature.
According to the indictment in which he was convicted, it appears that the teacher opened two fake profiles on the Hangouts app, which is used to transmit instant messages, through which he corresponded with young boys, presenting himself as an ultra-Orthodox teenager. During the correspondence, and after gaining the trust of the boys, he began to have conversations of a sexual nature with them. In order to establish his false identity, the defendant sent nude photos that he found online, as well as a sexually explicit video of one of the complainants, and it is unclear how he got into his hands.
In addition, as part of the correspondence, the defendant tried to persuade the minors to send him photos and videos of an intimate nature, and in some cases the boys acceded to his requests, while when they stopped complying with him, he threatened some of them that their identities were known to him and that he would publish the correspondence between them. The defendant approached the complainant's wife and sent her the nude video and asked her to send him a picture of herself but she refused, and then asked her if she wanted to meet and if she "liked sex?".
, in order to establish his false identity, the defendant sent nude photos that he found online, as well as a sexually explicit video of one of the complainants, which is unclear how he got into his possession. Photo: Getty Images, (illustration)
The defendant categorically denied the accusations against him and claimed that he was being incriminated, but Judge Mizrahi described in his verdict all the circumstantial evidence, first and foremost the presence of the photos and video in the defendant's possession, the connection to the American number, the digital seal of the email address that remained on the defendant's cellphone, all without giving them a reliable and reliable explanation, which incriminate him and lead to the conclusion that he should be convicted as described in the facts of the charges.
"I am of the opinion that the defendant presented a wide range of empty explanations, and on the other hand, that there is a factual presumption that a person is aware of the content of the digital materials in his possession, which requires him to provide reasonable explanations, and not to barricade himself in words such as: 'I have no idea,' he must explain how they came into his possession, and general arguments that anyone incriminated without supporting such an evidentiary claim should not be accepted," wrote Justice Mizrahi, adding: I hold that the defendant gave baseless testimony that does not logically deal with the findings presented to him, and I reject it with both hands.
A defendant who lays out before the court a wide arena of controversy according to which things never happened, that is, he was not the person who contacted the complainants, and here, the accuser manages to pierce that wide balloon in dispute, and proves by reliable circumstantial evidence his connection to those correspondences, collapses and crumbles his entire defense based on the claim that things never happened."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us
