"Didn’t it satisfy you the first time?": Captain Indicted Over Two Rapes
A captain from a northern base is accused of raping a sergeant from his unit in two separate incidents in his office. According to the indictment, in both cases she asked him to stop and tried to leave, but he ignored her resistance. The officer denies the allegations, saying the first incident was consensual and that he stopped during the second when she asked him to.
An officer with the rank of captain from a base in the north is accused of raping a sergeant who served in his unit in two different incidents in his office. According to the indictment, in one of the cases he carried out the acts against her after she repeatedly asked him to stop, tried to leave the office, and he blocked her path with his body.
The indictment against the officer was filed about three months ago and describes two incidents in which, as alleged, he took advantage of the sergeant’s presence in his office in order to carry out acts of rape against her. At the same time, the Military Court of Appeals recently rejected his request to obtain all the information contained on her phone device, claiming that the information is needed for him in order to manage the trial.
The first incident
The first incident occurred at the end of March. According to the indictment, the officer, who served as a safety officer, asked the sergeant, who served on a permanent basis, to bring him equipment related to her role in the unit. She brought the equipment to his office, and during a conversation that developed between them she told him that she was tired and wanted to sleep.
The officer asked her whether she would fall asleep if he turned off the light. After she answered in the affirmative, he turned off the light and asked her to make him feel good with her hand. She agreed and caressed his hand.
After a few minutes, the officer left the office, and then returned and asked her what would happen if he kissed her. She replied that she would tell him that it is not nice and would give him a slap. Despite this, as described in the indictment, he kissed her without her consent.
The sergeant grabbed him by the neck and said to him: "I told you no, what’s going on with you." In response, as alleged, he replied: "A small kiss, everything is fine," and then touched her chest over her clothes.
At this stage, the sergeant got up and began to move toward the office door. According to the indictment, the officer stood in front of her, pressed his chest against hers, and blocked her way. She stepped back, and then he opened the zipper of her jacket and the top button on her shirt, put his hand under her clothes, and grabbed her buttocks.
Then, according to the indictment, he began kissing her exposed breasts and touching her genital organ over her clothes. She told him: no, enough, it’s not happening, and he replied: "I’m after the closing of Shabbat, a little, I’ll finish quickly, I promise," and tried again to kiss her.
Despite her resistance, as alleged, the officer pulled down his underwear and asked her to help him. Afterwards, according to the indictment, he pushed her head downward and carried out his acts against her. She tried to move her head away and lift it back up, but he pushed it down again. After that, the two left the office together.
The second incident
The second case occurred about two weeks later, during the month of April. Again, according to the indictment, the officer asked the sergeant to come to his office in order to take equipment from him. When she arrived, the light in the office was off and she turned it on.
According to the indictment, the officer turned off the light again and then locked the office door.
After that, he pressed himself against her body from behind and kissed her without her consent. The sergeant told him: "Didn’t it satisfy you the first time?" and clarified to him: "No."
Despite this, as alleged, he began touching her chest. She grabbed his neck with her fingernails and tried to push him away from her. According to the indictment, the officer continued, opened his belt and asked her to touch his organ. The sergeant tried to free herself from his grip, and then, according to the indictment, he put his hands under her pants and touched her. About half a minute later, a soldier asked to enter the office, and then the incident ended.
The officer’s version: the first incident was consensual
The officer, represented by Ofir Avi Ram Emirem, denied what was attributed to him in his interrogations. According to him, the first incident occurred with full consent.
Regarding the second incident, the officer claimed that he thought the sergeant was interested in contact with him. According to him, when she asked him to stop, he indeed stopped. In addition, he denied the claim that he touched her under her pants.
However, the military courts, in two instances, ruled that the officer must be held until the end of the proceedings, due to his high dangerousness. According to the decisions of the military courts, this involves two different incidents in which the officer took advantage of the sergeant’s presence in his office in order to carry out acts of rape against her, while demonstratively ignoring her lack of consent to his actions throughout both incidents.
"I told you no, what’s going on with you?" — the sergeant to the officer during one of the incidents
The sergeant did not want at all to file a complaint; she decided to do so in order to protect other girls from him.
According to the material presented to the military court, the sergeant initially did not want to submit a complaint against the officer at all. Later, she decided to do so after she understood that she wants to protect other girls from him. The military court found the sergeant’s version to be coherent and consistent, and ruled that her version is supported by various pieces of evidence.
At the same time, at this stage, a mediation process is taking place between the Military Prosecution and the officer. About three weeks ago, a judge of the Military Court of Appeals partially accepted the appeal filed by the officer regarding various requests related to the procedure. As part of the decision, he was allowed to receive the list of the names of the soldiers in the clinic at the relevant time for the commission of the offense.
In addition, the Military Court of Appeals rejected his request to obtain all the information contained on the sergeant’s phone device, which he asked to receive for the purpose of managing the trial.
