Yisrael Valis: The Court Transcript
Unbelievable. We already know that the officer saw things that no medical examiner was able to see — e.g. not merely bite marks, but “pinch marks.” But the whole allegation that Valis confessed to long-term abuse of the child, and to not wanting him because of a birth defect? She has no clue where she got it from.
I’m going to offer a theory — Valis said his baby had a Mum, a blemish, on his neck. My theory is that the baby had a birthmark, which the officer misconstrued as a bite mark. Because as you will see herein, Valis “unequivocally denied” hitting the child, and never confessed to her to biting, to pinching, and certainly never confessed to not wanting his baby, and never confessed to having abused his baby from birth. And as we know, both medical reports say that no signs of abuse or deliberate harm were found on the baby.
What the officer told the press was one fabrication piled upon another. Excerpts from the court transcript have been posted in the original Hebrew; what follows is a translation of the last excerpted sections.
At this point Mr. Feldman [Lawyer for the Defense] exposes what happened behind the scenes with the police, surrounding this investigation. He argues to the officer [on the witness stand] that it went like a media circus (lit. “circus arrest”) and she lied to the press.
Q. Did you recive permission to speak with the press?
A. Yes. From the spokesman.
Q. You went to the spokesman?
A. Me?
Q. The spokesman told you to go to the press?
A. Yes. The spokesman was Shmulik ben Ruby, and all was done with their supervision. Segal, the spokesman’s assistant, was with me.
Q. Do you remember what you said to the press?
A. If you remind me, I will tell you.
Q. Even when you spoke to the press, didn’t you see before you a man who was hurt enough, that you didn’t need to hurt him more?
A. It’s different, when a man standing before you who is crying sometimes, and sometimes it is difficult for him, from when you are speaking when he is not in front of you, and you are talking about, about how the reality, how it is difficult.
Q. You spoke to the press about the actual reality? You didn’t exaggerate and didn’t overdo it. You spoke about the reality, exactly? Did you speak to the press about what was in the interrogation, in truth, and didn’t exaggerate, overdo, or describe the accused in the most disgusting way possible?
A. That’s how you see it?
Q. You told the television that he slammed the child’s head into the wall, did you say that?
A. Could be.
Q. I’m saying to you, on the basis of the fact before me that he unequivocally denied that he slammed the child’s head into the wall, on what basis did you say this?
A. I know that he confessed this regarding him.
Q. You know what he admitted in front of Brickman. You read it?
A. I didn’t read it. I heard it from Brickman.
Q. You go to the press and say terrible things about him, to be seen and heard immediately, without reading the confession?
A. That’s not true and never was. Not what you say and no part of it.
Q. We’ll show a piece from the Jerusalem Hot News, April 10, 2006. Where were you interviewed here?
A. At the station.
Q. And this is after the spokesman told you to be interviewed by the press. You said that he admitted that he hit him with anything he could. In any way possible. He bit him. He pinched him. He hit him with slaps and punches and threw his head into the wall. On what basis? He is sitting in jail at this point, and you’re taking it out on him in the press. For what?
A. I went to the press not because I asked. We went to photograph him, the kid. And there was a bite mark (pointing to her neck) and a pinch (behind the ear), and I told what I saw.
Q. Did he admit in front of you that he hit, pinched, and slammed his head into the wall?
A. I said exactly what I told the judge now.
Q. You said that he admitted to all that you said now. Where did he say this?
A. He confessed this regarding him to Brickman.
Q. And upon this you relied without reading. And more than this, let’s say he admitted. The interrogation isn’t over. They didn’t bring a charge sheet. He’s in prison? What’s this business going to the press?
A. They told me to be interviewed. They didn’t tell me what to say. They said to me to tell everything.
Q. When did the spokesman tell you to respond? This announcement was on April 10. Can I assume that this was close to the time that the spokesman told you to be interviewed, and the photographers came to the police station?
A. I don’t know. There were also photographers at the court.
Q. Let’s go back to April 4. There was an arrest process [perhaps indictment] that you participated in. Did the spokesman tell you before the arrest to be interviewed by the press after the arrest?
A. I was accompanied by the spokesman’s assistant, I think, Segal.
Q. Segal, the spokesman’s assistant, came with you already to the arrest. What is this media circus? What is the public’s involvement with an arrest? What is this?
A. In terms of what are you asking me?
Q. But they sent you to the front? The spokesman also knew what was happening in the investigation?
A. Yes, they were informed.
Q. And she told you what to say when the arrest was over?
A. She didn’t tell me what to say.
Q. You said, when the arrest was over, terrible things.
A. In your opinion.
Q. In anybody’s opinion. “That have no morning.” [“That are utterly fabricated and ludicrous.” — Eliezer Barzilai, in comments below.]
A. This was a terrible thing.
Q. You said he claimed an additional thing. That the child was born with a defect and that he really didn’t want him. Where did he claim this? That he didn’t want him, and therefore he killed him. Where is this written?
A. He told me that the child was born with a defect in his neck.
Q. Where did he say that he didn’t want him?
A. I truly don’t know where.
Q. Where is your responsibility?
Feldman added and asked the officer: you were interviewed that day on Galei Tzahal [Army Radio] by Yaron Vilensky. There you said, “he gave him hits, he gave him punches, he slammed his head into the wall. And moreover, from the day the child was born he had hit him.”
A. It could be that I said that. Things weren’t said that I made up. There were statements that this wasn’t the first time that he hit him.
Judge’s Question: From where did you know this?
A. I didn’t make it up. I don’t know where I got it from. I didn’t make it up.
Lawyer Feldman: You were also interviewed by the paper. There is practically no organ of the press by which you were not interviewed. You were interviewed by Yediot Acharonot [and said] “I cannot bear to listen to the descriptions of the father. He abused him from the day he was born, because he was born with a defect.” You ever heard him say these words? You lie.
A. I don’t recall that I said things like that to the paper, and the paper adds things that were not said and fatten things up. In the paper I tell you that they fatten. The fact is that I didn’t say this in the press when they filmed me. The paper writes what they like, and is good for them. I don’t deny that I was interviewed. I cannot say that what they wrote there, I said word by word. I am not responsible for what the paper writes.
When hearing a story like this my first thought is: Where does the root of the problem reside?
Regarding the policewoman: Is she generally prone to hysterical deception, to malicious embellishment and fabrication? On a personal level her conduct before the media suggests a zest for her new role that goes, shall we say, beyond the professional.
But the policewoman of course is only a hand of the larger body known as “Israeli Police”. And the Israeli Police’s conduct here is–we cannot avoid saying this–not only a classic study of media manipulation but a copycat implementation of the tactics of every totalitarian government from China, to Russia, to Cuba etc…. Turn “the accused” into “the guilty”; Don’t presume innocence, instead announce guilt; There are no “mitigating factors”; There are no “accidents”; The accused shall now become an unperson; The accused is not merely a suspect, he is a Criminal; His acts are not only wrong, they are unspeakable; The accused is not merely guilty, he is inhuman.
Subjected to the same government/media matrix could not anybody be found guilty by 90% of the public within 30 minutes? The Israeli Police know this and they know about the Israeli media’s penchant for hysteria, excess and thrills. And they take full advantage.
This story is not only about anti-Haredi hysteria. It is a story about the Israeli police, about the thrill-seeking media and its intoxicated customers and a government that manipulates both. I think it is the latest story of a gravely dysfunctional system.
The theory of having a ‘bitemark’ as a mum is simpy incorrect. The baby had torticollis – as far as I know that is not being debated by anyone.
Again, lets understand:
The injury that the baby had was (according to doctors quoted in the press) associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome. That is the main reason for the investigation.
Additionally, Haredi EMT’s who treated the baby and were the first to meet the Father reported that he acted suspiciously and he gave them a different story than he gave the Doctors in the hospital.
Again, that does not prove guilt.
Let’s keep in mind that the police can lie and exxagerate – yet the defendant can still be guilty. There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli police force is not a ‘tallit she’kulo techelet’. However, that does not mean that no one they arrest is guilty of the crime. All we have shown is that the Israeli Police Force has an element of corruption in it. I don’t think there are too many people in Israel who deny that.
Moshe,
The theory was just that, a theory. Torticollis is so eminently curable that anyone saying “he didn’t want his baby” because of this would be eligible for an insanity defense. [I’m exaggerating.]
You were the one who provided us with the link to the Pediatric Neurosurgeon’s report that the baby did not have Shaken Baby Syndrome. [The report seems to no longer be on that page. Any idea where it is now?]
Of course he could still be guilty. But with a cop willing to provide such a falsified account to the press, it is becoming more and more believable that he was railroaded.
Yaakov,
I agree with you regarding torticollis – but it’s hard for me to know how the father reacted to it. Still, as we have seen, the father did not tell anyone that he did not want the baby – that was made up by the police in order to smear the father.
I don’t know where the neurological report is – but all the report said was that it *was possible* that the baby did not have shaken baby syndrome. The report did not say that the baby *did not* have shaken baby syndrome. The neruologist was hired by the family – and we know that once someone is paid (read: bribed), he will give a response that fits the ticket.
Again, that does not prove guilt – I’m simply pointing out that there is no clear cut evidence that I know of. If the case hinges on the father’s confession, I’m quite sure he will be found innocent. If there is additional evidence that is not yet known, who knows?
Once again, I stress that I do not know if the Father is guilty or innocent. I do know that there have been a lot of knee-jerk responses – in both directions – without allowing the evidence to sway them in either direction.
OK – found the neurological report:
http://rotter.net/User_files/forum/443a704c480309d51.jpg
What it says is as follows (I don’t have time to translate the whole thing, so I’m paraphrasing the important parts):
“1) There are a number of studies that show bleeding in the retina?? of the eye without shaken baby syndrome.
2) In a case of a single injury, it is impossible to distinguish between accidental injury and inflicted injury. It is my (the professor’s) opinion that there is not enough evidence to decisively prove that this child was abused.
3) *It is obvious that I cannot determine that this injury was not purposely inflicted* (Note: bold in original). That is for the police and the social workers to determine.”
OK. Here’s my take. The baby died of injuries commonly associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome. The neurologist simply stated that there are some medical studies in which the symptoms of shaken baby syndrome are not caused by intentional shaking of the baby; thus, we cannot call the injury by the name of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
The professor clearly did not rule out abuse – he just said that the medical diagnosis cannot 100% determine abuse in this case.
Yaakov – maybe you can get your father to write up something for us laymen about the shaken baby syndrome vs. “shaken baby syndrome symptoms but not shaken baby syndrome”?
It is pretty obvious that the statements made in the immediate aftermath were without any factual foundation as to the presence of abuse like symptoms. The foregoing indicates a hypothesis of abuse without an iota of proof. Since the confession has been suppressed, one wonders when this case will be dropped for the lack of merit that has been shown as of this date.
The lawyer says at one point the words “That have no morning.” In case anyone is scratching their head, let me point out that having done a great deal of work translating Israel’s Antiquity Laws and legislative history, I sympathize with mistranslated idioms. The words most likely were “Ein lahem shachar,” [correct –YM] which means utterly fabricated and ludicrous.
The full transcript is up here:
http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?whichpage=3&topic_id=1966976
There isn’t too much more there that is too important other than what has already been publicized.
The next court session with the doctors testimony will be this Wed. – the 5th of July.
A video report from walla news in Hebrew:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//935854
They don’t say anything new, but you can see the family – I think his mother and his wife are shown.
The following are highlights from the first three sessions of the preliminary Valis trial, in which the later’s lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, asks for dismissal of the bill of indictment, claiming that Valis’ confession was extracted illegally.
The lawyer exposes the police in its full nakedness, proves how the false confession was forced out of the poor father that signed it following lies and mistreatment by the interrogators. Not only none of the objective findings supports the confession, but all of them refute it.
The entire “isreali” media – that joyfully enlisted itself in cooperation with the police embroidering this blood libel (so called by Rabbi Tuvia Weiss, the Eda Charedit Gaved) – didn’t bother to inform its readers with what’s really happening in the trial. So, for those who are nourished by the lies of this media, here is my modest contribution, so they’ll be able to find out the truth of this matter.
June, 27, took place the 3rd session, and, inter alia, the lawyer cross intergotaes Aliza Aroch, a police interrogator
“Q: In what stage of the interrogation did he (Valis) start crying? (In her main testimony she so testified)
A: Don’t know. In one of the stages. Do I sit and write down for myself?
Q: He doesn’t confess in this interrogation? In none of the things you cast suspicion on him?
A: Its all written.
Q: Did you suspect him in this stage?
A: Yes.
Q: And he renders an interrogation spreading on two pages that its main argument is that the baby received a non voluntary blow?
A: He claimed whatever he claimed. Its all written.
Q: I refer you to line 14, line 17, line 31.
A: Ok.
Q: His argument is that he shook the baby and the baby fell and received a non voluntary blow?
A: He said, ‘Then he cried and stopped crying. He didn’t cry much. It lasted few secondsw’…
Q: The main argument was that the baby received a non voluntary blow, is this true?
A: I read what he said.
Q: Read and answer the question, was this his version, in contrast to the argument that he punched him forcefully? He didn’t confirm that he punched him?
A: True.
Q: And that’s throughout two pages of interrogation.
A: What he said, I wrote.
Q: Although he doesn’t confess, all of a sudden he starts crying. Like you as an interrogator this is not the first interrogee you interrogated, likewise for me this is not the first interrogation I saw and I never encountered an interrogator that will not write down that the suspect started crying, because this might indicate feelings of guilt. Might indicate of a thing he hides. How come you didn’t write down in this stage that the suspect began crying?
A: I didn’t write it.
Q: He denies. Why should he start crying? Based on my long experience, people who start crying are people who confess. That suddenly they are not able to contain the guilt and it bursts out in crying.
A: I’m not a psychologist. I’m only an interrogator and not an interpretor of emotions why and how he cried here. I say, a fact, he cried.
Q: And I tell you, nothing of the kind. I tell you that if he would’ve cried you’d’ve written it down and it had to have some reference in the confession.
A: He cried and I insist on it and I’m not a little child.
Q: You were summoned because you are familiar with the Moldova case? What is Moldova?
A: A similar case. Abuse of a baby where the baby lies like a carcass.
Q: You interrogated this case?
A: My crew.
Q: Meaning that from the very beginning hovers above this story a possibility of baby abuse?
A: Yes.
Q: Valis tells you a story of non voluntary fall. Yoy tell him that you don’t believe him?
A: Don’t remember if I told him. I asked him another question and another question.
Q: From you experience as an interrogator, when the interrogee tells you things that don’t correspond to your feeling, don’t you tell him, You are lying?
A: Maybe yes but I don’t remember if I said so in this case or not.
Q: Did you raise your voice on him?
A: No, no..
Q: Did you tell him during the interrogation that you’ll arrest him, that he will be arrested?
A: Maybe in some situation or another I did.
Q: Din’t you tell him, ‘pity on you, you’ll sit in prison with criminals and rapists’?
A: I didn’t
Q: You are an interrogator and you are frustrated. From your angle he tells a fiction, of a non voluntary fall. And you believe it is an abuse. How do you make him talk?
A: I do whatever I can to convince him and produce a testimony.
Q: Wouldn’t you tell him, ‘you’ll go to prison, sit with criminals and rapists, you are a nice guy, good soul’?
A: Don’t know if I said such thing. From where do you fetch this?
Q: Where from do you think I fetched it? I wasn’t there, but someone else was.
A: Whoever knows me knows exactly what sort of a person I am and how experienced I am and how far is this thing from me.
Q: I understand that all along until the end you felt motherly emotions towards him, right?
A: On my life.
Q: When did those emotions disappear?
A: They didn’t. I treated him with respect. With a feeling not to hurt him, and honestly, look in my eyes, I said he had enough, he went through whatever he went through. No need for me to add on it.
Q: You didn’t want to hurt him unnecessarily?
A: On my life, and believe me.
Q: I could almost believe you, had I not seen what you told the media.”
In this stage argues Feldman towards Aroch that she was part of an “arrest circus” and that she lied to the media.
“Q: Did you receive a confirmation to speak with the media?
A: Yes. From the spokesman.”
Let me share here with the reader my own experience with Shmuel Ben Rubi, the Jerusalem District Police spokesman. For many years he is one of the most bitter enemies of Hardei Jews. In a previous capacity of mine I handled in cases of brutal police indiscriminate beatings of innocent Jews whom only guilt was they were Haredi Jews that happened to be where people demonstrated in Bar Ilan on Shabbat. People who came back home from prayer, mothers who went down (one case was of a 9 month pregnant woman who was beaten to the ground and kicked by policemen). All those beatings where done with the encouragement and backing of Ben Rubi. I met him personally in a meeting of a kneset committee where he lied without a blink. A mean person and a crude antisemite. What Feldman is talking now is how this mean person staged the whole Valis affair, the minute he figured out he has a chance to hurt Haredi Jewry.
“Q: Did you approach the spokesman?
A: Me?
Q: Did the spokesman tell you to appeal to the media?
A: Yes. The spokesman is Shmulik Ben Rubi and everything was done with their escort. Sigal, the spokesman’s assistant was with me.
Q: Do you remember what did you tell the media?
A: If you remind me, I’ll tell you.
Q: Also when speaking to the media did you see in front of you a person who was hurt enough and there is no need to hurt him more?
A: It’s different when you face a lad that cries a little and is in some difficulties, than when you talk when you don’t face him and speak about how is reality, how difficult it is…
Q: You spoke to the media about the reality, true? You didn’t exaggerate and didnt overstate, you spoke precisely about reality? Did you tell the media what really was in the interrogation and you didn’t exaggerate and didn’t overstate or made the accused appear to the public in the most repulsive way possible?
A: That’s how you see it?
Q: You told the TV that he banged the baby’s head in the wall, did you?
A: Maybe.
Q: I tell you, based on the material before me, that he unequivocally denied that he banged the baby’s head in the wall. On what ground did you say it?
A: I know that he confessed in what was ascribed to him.
Q: You know what did he confess in the presence of Brickman, did you read it?
A: I didn’t read. I heard from Brickman.”
Comment. Brickman is a former haredi person who turned secular and works for the police. When Valis didn’t yield he was summoned, entered the room, didn’t tell Valis he is in a capacity of an interrogator, but lied to him that he is here in a mission from his father to help him out of this mess and all he has to do is sign a confession and everything will be settled. Valis, a truly ben-torah, a “Chlamer”, innocent, knows nothing of such matters, exhausted, feeling guilty of his careless holding of the baby, tortured for tens hours hours by the police, anxious to see his baby, fell pray to the trick pulled by this Yidish speaking nice guy who came to his rescue in this horrid situation and signed a false confession after Brickman promissed him that admitting those lies will end this torment.
“Q: You go to the media and said horrible things about him – and we shall soon see and also hear – without reading the confession?
A: Nothing of the kind. Lo miney velo miktxatey of what you say.
Q: We show a segment from Hot News Jerusalem April, 10, 2006. Where does this interview take place?
A: In the (police) station.
Q: And that’s after the spokesman told you, go be interviewed by the mrdia. You said that he confessed that he hit him with everything he could find. In every feasible way. He bit him. He pinched him. He hit him with slaps and fists and banged his head in the wall. On what ground? He sits in custody and you verbally attack him in the media. What for?
A: I didn’t go to the media because I asked for it. We went to take pictures of him and the baby. And there was a bite (points on the neck) and a pinch (behind the ear) and I said what I saw.”
Comment. After Shabbat, b”h, I’ll bring excerpts from a previous testimony that explains this one.
“Q: Did he confess to you that he hit, pinched and banged the head in the wall?
A: I said exactly what I said to the judge now.
Q: You said that he confessed in everything you told now. Where did he say it?
A: He confessed in what is ascribed to him to Brickman.
Q: And you relied on this without reading? Beyond that, let’s say he confessed. The interrogation isn’t over. No indictment was handed. He is in custody. What is this matter to go to the media?
A: I was told to be interviewed. I wasn’t told what to say. I was told to say everything.
Q: When did the spokesman tell you to respond? The confession was in April, 10. Can I assume that it was near this time that the spokesman told you to get interviewed and then the photographers appeared in the police station?
A: Don’t know. There where photographers also in the court.
Q: We go back to April, 4. There was a custody process that you took part in. Did the spokesman tell you before the custody process, ‘go and get interviewed by the media after the custody’?
A: I was accompanied by the spokesmans deputy, I think, Sigal.
Q: Sigal, the spokesman’s deputy accompanies you already to the custody process. What is this? A custody circus? What is this? Public relations, the custody? What is this?
A: You ask me as what?
Q: But they’ve sent you to the front. Did the spokesman know too what happens in the interrogation?
A: Yes. They are being updated.
Q: And did she tell you what to tell after the custody is over?
A: She doesn’t tell me what to say.
Q: You said horrible things after the custody.
A: In your opinion.
Q: In the opinion of every person. Things that are absolutely false.
A: This was a horrible case.
Q: You said that he claimed another thing. That the child was born with a defect and that he actually didn’t want him. Where did he claim such a thing? That he didn’t want him and therefore killed him. Where is this written?”
My comment. Up to date, the media still claims that Valis murdered his baby because he was an invalid. In the beginning they claimed he also used to regularly beat his wife, following this item in the false confession. When the later came out to the media, refuted it and stood wholeheartedly behind her husband, together with her mother – the shwiger! – The media began spreading that the entire family wanted to get rid of the baby so that he will not turn a hinder in the shiduchim of the family, a common concern in haredi families in such cases. Up to date the secular public believes this to be the case.
Afte Shabbat I’ll, b”h, cite from another session, how Feldman exposes the truth about the nature of this “fefect”.
“A: To me he told that the child was born with a defect in the neck.
Q: Where did he say that he didn’t want him?
A: I really don’t know where.
Q: To Galei Tzahal you gave an interview in that day to Yaron Vilenski. In it you said: ‘He slapped him. He boxed him. He banged his head in the wall. Beyond that. From the first day the child was born he beate him’.
A: Maybe I said. There were no things said that I invented. There were things said that it’s not the first time he beat him…
The courts question: From where do you know?
A: I didn’t invent it. I don’t know from where did I bring it. I didn’t invent.
Feldman: You also gave interview to the newspaper. There hardly exists a media you didn’t give an interview to. You were interviewed by Yediot Acharonot (the lawyer reads from the paper): ‘I couldn’t hear the father’s descriptions. From the child’s birth he abused him because he was born with a defect’. Have you ever heard him say so? You lie.
A: I don’t remember that I said such things to the paper, and the paper adds things that are not said and inflates things. In the paper I tell you they inflate. The fact is that I didn’t say it in the media when they filmed me. The paper writes the things that are comfortable and good for it. I don’t deny I was interviewed. I cannot say that they wrote word by word what I said. I’m not responsible to what the paper writes.”
The above citations are but from one interrogation. The above speaks for itself. Now, the media, that was a full participant with this infamous police spokesman in staging this antisemite circus, ignores the truth as being exposed in the court. Except for Ynet who even now came out with a distorted covering claiming that Valis’ guilt was exposed in the 4th session. Which is of course false. What was exposed is the fact that the doctors negligence in Hadassa Ein Kerem probably contributed a large deal to the child’s death (I’m still waiting for the protocol to be published).
Hopefully, the readers of this forum do not belong to the brainwashed sickular public who do not care to read facts that might confuse their brainwashed mind, and will find interest in facts rather than antisemite propaganda, the “isreali” media so excels in, putting the “Jewish” state as the #1 antisemite state in the Western world. I wrote more, but it’s in Hebrew and Shabbat is close. B’H I’ll translate the rest after Shabbat and publish it here, with the consent of the host.
Shabbat Shalom
It’s of course impossible to analyze in such a forum the entire protocols. I refer though the reader to one of the laywer’s questions to Aliza Aroch:
“Q: His argument is that he shook the baby and the baby fell and received a non voluntary blow?”
During this entire saga the police and the media use the term “tiltel” (shook) to describe how the father treated the baby in that night. That’s a term intentionally chosen because it denotes brutal physical treatment. The argument is that the father himself used this term in his confession. The truth of the matter however is that the Yidish speaking Yisroel Valis used the term “wigen”. In the Mame Loshen that’s a word Jewish parents use for hundreds of years at least to describe the tender wiggling of a little child, in a cradle for instance. Brickman somehow, probably using Valis’ non fluency in current spoken Hebrew, tricked a Hebrew translation of “tiltul” to “wigen”, thus drastically changing the atmosphere of the circumstances of this critical night, from a tender attempt of a father to calm his crying baby to a brutal treatment of a cruel man. One out of many examples of the shameful way this whole affair was handled by the police, who was determined from the beginning to embroider this blood libel and present Valis as a non human murderer of his little baby.
I refer the reader to another segment in Feldman’s interrogation of Aroch:
“Q: And that’s after the spokesman told you, go be interviewed by the mrdia. You said that he confessed that he hit him with everything he could find. In every feasible way. He bit him. He pinched him. He hit him with slaps and fists and banged his head in the wall. On what ground? He sits in custody and you verbally attack him in the media. What for?
A: I didn’t go to the media because I asked for it. We went to take pictures of him and the baby. And there was a bite (points on the neck)
Q: Did he confess to you that he hit, pinched and banged the head in the wall?
A: I said exactly what I said to the judge now.”
Well, there were no signs of bites, no signs of blows, no signs of pinches, found on the baby. The lawyer rendered the court pictures where the baby looks well taken care of, groomed, with no signs. That’s despite the police claim that Valis hit the child constantly from his birth. Two external doctors that were hired by the family (after they noticed the negligence of the Hadassa doctors who treated the child) examined the baby and they found no such signs. One of them was Prof. Hiss, the second Prof. Konstantini, the #1 specialist in Israel in child neuro-surgery. The later wrote:
“Concerning the possibility of child abuse: there are no signs of abuse, either chronic or acute…there is no shaken baby syndrome”.
Point blanc. The baby didn’t suffer abuse that corresponds the police story of an abused baby that was “beaten, bitten, slapped, pinched”, not before arriving to the hospital nor in previous months.
Konstantini’s expertise was handy to all and also appeared in web forums. None of the media means that constantly spread this blood libel, bothered to mention this expertise.
I refer the reader to another segment of Aroch’s interrogation:
“Q: We show a segment from Hot News Jerusalem April, 10, 2006. Where does this interview take place?
A: In the (police) station.
Q: And that’s after the spokesman told you, go be interviewed by the mrdia. You said that he confessed that he hit him with everything he could find. In every feasible way. He bit him. He pinched him. He hit him with slaps and fists and banged his head in the wall. On what ground? He sits in custody and you verbally attack him in the media. What for?
A: I didn’t go to the media because I asked for it. We went to take pictures of him and the baby. And there was a bite (points on the neck) and a pinch (behind the ear) and I said what I saw.”
In this context, here is a segment from the cross examination of a MDA (Magen David Adom) volunteer, Avi Shif-Lisbeker, by Feldman, on June, 6:
“Q: You said that you gave him oxygen. Describe us the process of giving oxygen.
A: The oxygen tank arrives inside a linen box with a zipper above. In its side are pockets in which are contained the oxygen masks. One must open the zipper and open the tank, combine the mask to the tank and make flow the oxygen.
Q: And fasten the mask on the baby’s face?
A: Of course. We have a mask fit to a baby.
Q: It’s being fastened to the face and tied, how?
A: With a rubber lace.
Q: Do you know that fastening an oxygen mask on a baby’s face can leave signs on the face?
A: Certainly.
Q: You, like you said, noticed one sign on the baby’s face, and this, you said, was a red spot. Then, you said, to the prosecutor’s request, that it seemed like hematoma. Then, you said that it was…
A: On the rear side. Above, behind the ear.
Q: Closer to the scruff?
A: Yes.
Q: That’s the only sign you noticed on him?
A: Yes.
Q: Then, in the ambulance, another procedure was performed, like you said, of inserting a hose to the trachea, Which obliges taking off the oxygen mask and a procedure in which the baby’s mouth is being opened and the hose is inserted. And that too involves a contact with the baby’s face?
A: Yes.
Q: When a three month old baby is concerned, such a contact may also leave signs on his face?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Describe us the procedure of inserting a hose inside the trachea. How does this take place?
A: Laying down the baby on his back, inclining his head backwards, with an accessory called laryngoscope that locates the vocal cords and through them the trachea is entered.
Q: While gripping the mouth and opening it?
A: The act is entering the laryngoscope, which is a sort of edge, inside the mouth and pulling it upwards.
Q: Can it hurt the lip?
A: If not done correctly, sure.
Q: Can it produce a pressure on the lip?
A: If not done correctly, sure, it can.
Q: Did you see hematoma on the baby’s cheek?
A: No.
Q: Is it true that the mask is fastened on the cheek?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see a wound or a sign under the lips angle from left?
A: I didn’t notice.
Q: Is it true that this is an area that can come in touch with the tobus, the lips angle on the left?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see a sign in the forehead on the left?
A: No.
Q: Is it true that the mask reaches the baby’s forehead?
A: Yes. Depends on the face’s size. In this specific case I don’t remember.
Q: To what ages does the mask you used fit?
A: It’s defined as a baby oxygen mask.
Q: Upon your experience, to what age is it being used?
A: Depends on the face’s size, like I said.
Q: Did you see a sabotage sign in the cheek on the right side?
A: No.
Q: Is it true that the oxygen mask is fastened also to the right side cheek?
A: Yes.
Q: The mask covers the mouth too, the nose and ends in the forehead area and covers the nose?
A: In this specific case I don’t remember. But it certainly can reach the forehead.
Q: Where exactly was the hematoma?
A: Don’t remember exactly in what side, but beyond the ear up. The witness demonstrates. Beyond the ear upwards.
Q: You could notice it, was there hair?
A: Don’t remember if there was hair on the baby’s head.
Q: Will you agree with me that if there is hair its difficult to notice an hematoam?
A: Yes.
Q: I show you a picture of the baby z”l. Does he have hair on the head?
A: Yes.
The picture was delivered and marked n/3.
Q: I refer your attention that the baby was examined by Prof. Hiss, while alive, in the hospital. He rendered an expertise on April 6, 2006 and he didn’t find the hematoma you described. Can you respond to this? He has found all the things I read to you and you said that they can be result of inserting the mask or inserting the tobus but he found no hematoma where you describe it. Can you respond to this?
Attorney Kaufman (the prosecutor): Objection. If the question is intended to receive feo the witness an expert testimony, Prof. Hiss will have an explanation that the court will hear in the future why red signs or any signs can vanish in a short time. But if the question is intended to get from the witness an answer why he saw something that Prof. Hiss didn’t see, this is conjectural testimony.
Q (Feldman): In light of the fact that I present before you that Prof. Hiss examined the baby on April 4 and didn’t find the hematoma, is it possible you were mistaken?
A: yes.”
Voila. That’s the entire srory of the signs the police officer saw and upon them she was rushed by Ben Ruby to the press to say:
“he hit him with everything he could find. In every feasible way. He bit him. He pinched him. He hit him with slaps and fists and banged his head in the wall.” To remind you, this refers to the entire period of the baby’s three months life!
Signs of an oxygen mask and a hose following a first aid treatment. It’s not just a sloppy police job. Its an intentional negligence of doing the minimum work needed to find the truth, because the police was determined to present Valis as a brutal murderer, this in the context of an attempt to depict the entire Torah Jewry as blood thirsty monsters.
In this context I refer the reader to another aspect in this shameful blood libel, the neck “defect”, and to this segment in Aroch’s testimony:
“Q: You said that he claimed another thing. That the child was born with a defect and that he actually didn’t want him. Where did he claim such a thing? That he didn’t want him and therefore killed him. Where is this written?
A: To me he told that the child was born with a defect in the neck.
Q: Where did he say that he didn’t want him?
A: I really don’t know where.”
As mentioned, the secular media happily spread this lie – were it not for its tragic circumstances, it could become a subject for an amusing skit – about the cruel father who murders his little baby because he was born with a defect in the neck, something that might hinder the shiduchim in the family…
In this context, the following is a segment that commemorates the testimony of the Infant Welfare Center (Tipal Chalav) nurse, Aviva Levi, who answers the lawers questions:
“Q: Where are you employed?
A: In Tipat Chalav staion in Ramat Eshkol.
Q: What do you do there?
A: I’m a nurse in Tipat Chalav. I work in this capacity close to 30 years.
Q: Do you know the Valis family?
A: I was familiar with them. When they came to Tipat Chalav with their baby.
Q: What can you tell us about the deceased baby, Yitzchak Shmuel Valis?
A: I saw him. Was impressed. An ordinary baby. The neck was a little inclined to the side. Suspected to be Toticullis.
Q: What’s Toticullis?
A: Shortening of the neck muscles.
Q: You say, suspected Toticullis. Who raised this suspicion?
A: I saw it and suspected.
Q: Did you speak with somebody about it?
A: I spoke with the mother.
Q: The mother was conscious of it?
A: She said that she visited the doctor and he too referred her to physiotherapy.
Q: What else can you tell us?
A: An ordinary baby. Cute. Like all the babies I receive.
Q: What actions did you perform concerning the baby?
A: She first came to weight check. I told her of course that we’ll open a file and a payment must be made. I gave her a payment voucher and set a date to open a file. She arrived with him when he was two month old. It’s customary to give half the payment if there is a discount in the municipal property tax. She said she doesn’t have the discount and will to pay the full price. She went to the post office, paid, returned, I entered her to a doctor’s checking
Court’s question: What with proceeding the physiotherapy?
A: I spoke with the mother. She was worried a little. I told her that it will cure by physiotherapy. In general all babies are cured from this syndrome.”
That’s it. That’s the neck “defect”, for which, according to the police, a Haredi father killed his baby. No defect and no shmefect. A common syndrome with babies that is cured following physiotherapy. How many words were spilled in the media due to this “defect” and on the “Haredi who murdered his baby because of it”? and are still being spilled.
The police didn’t bother do the elementary action of inquiry in the Tipat Chalav, or of neighbors, or of the doctor about this. The minute they milked the false confession from Yisroel Valis the entire “israeli” media was already waiting in line to get and spread the blood libel how Torah Jews treat their babies. It was couple of days before Pessach. And honestly, I can find no difference between the lies of Jews murdering xian babies for matzo blood and Jews murdering their own babies so they do not become an obstacle for shiduchim.
We saw the police. But what about the DA (is this the right translation for “praklitut”?)? How come the DA didn’t ask the police, why didn’t you do the most elementary thing and ask in Tipat Chalav, and amny other elementray questions before hastening with prosecution? And what about the media? All those hectic journalists who are so clever in exposing hidden bank accounts of politicians etc.? How come there wasn’t but *one* reporter who enlisted the immense brains it takes to go ask the Tipat Chalav nurse?
Clear. They were all part of this circus and no one wanted hard facts confuse the sickular minds so willingly yielding to antisemite brainwash.
But the ultimate answer to this one, as to many other questions rising from this affair, is plain and clear: The identity of the accused. When Torah Jews are concerned, the media ceases to be the citizen’s watchdog guarding him from the authorities, but the later’s attack dog against the citizen.
Once again, we are reacting to the way people act to us, and not trying to reach the truth behind the story.
I’m still trying to get the court transcript of the last court session, but it seems that doctors testified.
The Doctors testified that the baby had bleeding in the retina, as well as a detached retina – symptoms of shaken baby syndrome. Once again, I think that if we could get a [pediatric] neurologist to post with some background info and the possibilty of these injuries coming from a simple fall off the bed, we would be greatly enlightened.
Please, don’t paint yourself into a corner.
The police may be wrong, they may have gone to the press and lied, they may hate Haredim.
None of the above preclude the possibilty that Vallis may have caused the death of his son – intentionally or accidentaly. Would I rely on the police to make that decision? No – that is why there is a court of law, and each side can present their arguments. I don’t see Mr. Vallis being denied his day in court, so let’s just let the case continue playing itself out.
Even if the confession is thrown out, if the medical testimony is what they claim it is, the evidence may be enough to find Mr. Vallis guilty; alternatively, the judge may find that there is reasonable doubt as to how the injuries were incurred and find Mr. Vallis innocent.
The fact that one is Haredi does not, unfortunately, prevent him from doing horrendous acts; but we cannot slaughter him on the altar of self rightousness without allowing him to have the chance to defend himself.
Alisa in wonderland
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3238270,00.html
Aliza Aroch to Ynet:
“That’s one of the most difficult cases we encountered…the father was conscious to his actions…he described how he used to hit his son. He told that the child disrupted him from handling a life like he wanted…the father used to beat his wife…he hit his son, whether by bites, pinches, fists”.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/069/776.html
Aliza Aroch to NRG:
“Aliza Aroch told Nrg that the child was found with bites on his neck, signs of pinces in the ear, as well as a bite in a diameter of 15 cm on the neck and a punch in his eye (panas ba’ayin). Aroch says the mother still denies involvement in the case and is expected to be interrogated again”.
http://www.02net.co.il/Site/templates/inPage.asp?catID=1&subID=13&docID=25746
“Aliza Aroch told…that the father was beating his wife. From the investigation material… rise grave accusations of causing sabotage and a continued abuse…the suspect used to abuse the baby since he was born three month ago. He used to bite him, punch him and pinch him and also hit him with his fists. The reason for the cruelty: the baby was born with a defect in his neck”.
OK-
The court transcripts are finally up.
Here is the link:
http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?whichpage=1&topic_id=1975969
I’ll try to summarize:
Dr. Avi Rivkind, a very well respected trauma surgeon, head of the Haddasah Trauma Unit (probably one of the best in the world, after all of the piguim that they had to deal with) was called by Yehudah Meshi Zahav on behalf of the family to check the baby.
His testimony is clear – he points out old hematomas (bruises) on the face of the baby, as well as new and old subdural hematomas. He clearly seems to suspect abuse. There was a lot of bickering between him and the defense attorney – I’m not quite sure why, but I think it has to do with the fact that the defense attorney kept insinuating that he was giving opinions that were outside his realm of specialization. Dr. Rivkind, on the other hand, felt that it was perfectly fair for him to diagnose a CT scan, as he has seen hundreds and thousands of them, even though he is not a radiologist. Dr. Rivkind is probably right – although the defense attorney has every right to bring a radiologist who diagnosed the CT differently than Dr. Rivkind.
Just a note: There are pictures of the bruises on the face of the baby that were introduced into evidence – so no one can claim that Dr. Rivkind is lying and making things up.
I’ll continue the rundown in another comment later.
The second witness was Dr. Iran Antebbe (the spelling of her name in English may be incorrect). She is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and was called due to widening of the pupils.
She took pictures of the eye using a special camera that allows her to see the back wall of the eye, and she found [in the left eye] ischemia of the optic nerve and massive bleeding around the retina. The retina itself was detached and the baby was blind due to the massive trauma of the eye. She indicated that this was a classic symptom of shaking a baby (abusively).
The right eye was better, but it had atrophy of parts of it due to a lack of blood supply. (Note: I’m unclear about this part, and I’m too tired to look in the med books).
She then goes on to discuss what can cause the problems in the eyes, and voices her opinion (based upon the extent of bleeding in the left eye) that the cause was shaking the baby violently, causing trauma to the eye.
Additionally, she voices an opinion that the bleeding in the retina was caused at different times, but it is very difficult to tell them (the differernt age bleeding) apart.
The defense attorney brings a German study that bleeding in the retina can be caused by subdural hematomas (which the baby had).
Dr. Antebbe did not change her opinion, based upon other findings (fold in the retina) and she still felt that the cause of the eye injuries were shaken baby syndrome.
More in another comment.
Continuation:
The next doctor to gve testimony was a neurosurgeon by the name of Dr. Spector. He also noted that the subdural hematoma found in the CT scan had an area with older blood in it – probably a week or two. There was also an area with fresh blood in it – a few hours to a few days old.
He also mentioned that there is a subarachnoid hematoma which, when found together with a subdural hematoma is generally a sign of trauma.
An important note is that there was no skull fracture, although he noted that in babies that is not such an issue, as they have spongy bones, and they can absorb shock.
When questioned as to whether the trauma came because of abuse (shaken baby syndrome) hesaid that he could not tell how the injury came to be – only that there was a large amount of trauma. He also said that hypoxia seemed to be involved as to the death of the baby – the hematomas themselves would not havce caused death if not for hypoxia.
He concludes by replying that a fall from 50 cm can cause brain injuries like the ones the Vallis baby had.
More to come…
The last witness was Dr. Ido Yatziv, the head of the pediatric ICU. To make a long story short, he said quite clearly that he is of the opinion that the injury wasnot the result of a 50 cm fall. He spoke of the various injuries the childhad and of the treatment he received. He mentioned the bruises on the face of the child.
He was quite sure that the injuries were inflicted.
In summation, the testimony of the doctors was quite a blow to the defense. The defense attorney did not have anything of substance, and even the doctor the family had requested (Dr. Rivkind) seemed to think that abuse was involved here.
The prosecution showed evidence of past injuries via the CT scan and showed evidence of bruises on the babies face.
In all, a possible pattern of abuse WAS shown, and contrary to what Yaakov Menken has written in the past, the baby did have old bruises on his face.
Is the medical evidence enough to convict, even without the confession of the father? No idea. One thing is clear, though. There are very strong grounds for suspicion of the father, and as such, there is ample reason to put him on trial. This is not an open and shut case of police hating Charedim and as such, building a case against them. There is far more to the story than that.
Comments 14-17 are a twisted and distorted summary of the protocols. Or, in less diplomatic language, what poster Moshe wrote could be called lying. Lying, not in the sense of saying an entire false thing, but in in showing a thing in a context completely different than the true one, thus creating an overall picture that is diametrically opposed to reality. He must count on the fact that readers here do not know Hebrew, or don\’t bother to read craefully the materia.
I read it too only yesterday. It was in Jerusalem, where I drove my wife to find shelter from the missiles landind in Haifa, and drove back to Haifa this morning because I don\’t want to leave my old parents alone in this war. Obviously, I don\’t have now the strength nor the passion to describe in detail what this protocol actually tells.
I\’ll say for now only this: Feldman smashed the testimonies of the doctors. Reminder. Those are the prosecution witnesses, the lawyer didn\’t bring yet his. He found so many contradictions in the story the prosecution tried to fabricate, that even before he brings his own witnesses, there is no more case to base upon the false confession. There is no objective evidence external to this confession to support it, while, again, even before advancing the defence medical witnesses, all objective data known so far conradicts this confession and shows it as what it actually is, a false document illigeally milked from the poor father.
When times are calmer I\’ll, be\”h, be specific and analyze the protocol.
May G-d put an end to our troubles, deliver us from our the hands of enemies, external and internal, and send finally Mashiach to establish His Kingdom in Jerusale, amen sela.
I thank Shmuel Kuper for his flattering review of my analysis of the court protocol. I disagree with him, and I do not think I was lying, but he is entitled to his opinion.
I invite anyone who can read Hebrew to read the protocol, and then you can judge for yourself if I wrote a ‘twisted and distorted’ summary.
I think that it is clear that I am not siding with any one side – I am simply reporting the facts as I see them. Yaakov Menken can testify that it was me who brought up the issue of the police lying – I have no reason to deny facts; I simply want to get to the bottom of this matter.
Unfortunately, the testimony of the doctors were less than flattering for the accused. The defense lawyer kept on getting into spats with the Judge, as well as with the witnesses. As I have a bit of a background in medicine, it may be that I tend to respect the doctors opinion in medical matters more than I respect Att. Feldman’s opinion in those matters.
Still, if there is a doubt, the accused should be found innocent. It still remains to be seen if there is a doubt in the case – some of the Doctors felt that it was an open and shut case of abuse, another thought differently.