Burst into her home, tied her hands — and raped her in front of her son: ahead of the sentencing of Barakat Abu Essa | Hard to read

More than three years have passed since that night that turned the life of a resident of Gedera in her 30s into an ongoing nightmare. This morning (Wednesday) the Central District Court in Lod will sentence Barakat Abu Essa, a resident of the Bedouin diaspora, who was convicted of breaking into her home, rape under aggravating circumstances, entering a residence, and abuse of a minor, after he carried out the acts in front of her three small children. The National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is also expected to attend the hearing.

According to the court’s ruling, already on the evening before the attack, Abu Essa left his home in Tel Sheva and drove to Gedera. He parked his vehicle near the building where the complainant lived, and after hours of waiting he returned to the scene, pre-equipped with gloves, a hooded cap, a face covering, and two rolls of thick adhesive tape. At 2:22 a.m., he climbed through the balcony and entered the apartment through a window that was not locked.

At that same time, the mother was sleeping with her three children, aged two, four and five. She woke up to breastfeed her toddler, heard noises from the living room and the kitchen, and went out to check what the source was while the child was in her arms. The moment she noticed the intruder, she began shouting for help, but within seconds he rushed at her, blocked her mouth, and threatened: “Be quiet or I’ll kill you.” She struggled with him, bit his hand, and tried to make noise so that the neighbors would hear, but he knocked her to the floor, slammed her head against the floor until a tooth broke and she injured her lip, and tied her hands, legs, eyes and mouth using the adhesive tape he brought with him. All that time, the toddler stood next to her and cried without stopping.

At first she tried to convince herself that it was an intruder who had come to steal. She even showed him where the money was in the house, hoping he would take it and leave. However, according to the court’s ruling, it became clear very quickly that his purpose was completely different. He led her, while she was bound, into the MAMAD, laid her on the floor, and continued asking where the money and her mobile phone were. When she tried to crawl toward the door to escape, he returned to the room and threatened to murder her.

After that, he removed the toddler from the MAMAD, closed the door, and began committing sexual offenses against her. First, he caressed her body and inserted his fingers into her genital organ. Then he went to the kitchen, took a knife and a bottle of oil, returned to her, cut the adhesive tape that had tied only her legs, leaving her hands, eyes and mouth bound, lubricated her genital organ, and raped her until he reached orgasm, while she cried, whined and begged him to let her go.

Even after the rape was over, as was determined, he did not hurry to flee. He told the complainant that he was “going to eat,” went to the kitchen, opened the refrigerator, took out a bottle of beer, and drank from it. When her four-year-old son woke up and asked him where his mother was, he spoke to him briefly, and only then fled the apartment through the balcony. Before leaving, he removed the tape from the complainant’s mouth and told her: “You have older children—call them and they will help you.”

Which master’s degree program in business administration offers the most elective courses?

The purpose was not theft — but a premeditated sex offense

The four-year-old son found his mother tied up in the MAMAD. She asked him to bring a knife from the kitchen. The child managed to cut the strips that freed his mother and was injured in his hand during the attempt. Only after she was freed was she able to summon help.

Immediately afterward, she sent messages to her friend, to her attorney, and to her relatives, and later she also wrote in the building’s WhatsApp group: “Yes, someone broke into my home. I tried to confront him. He tied me all over my body next to my little son. After he walked around the whole house, he returned and raped me.” Afterwards she knocked on the neighbor’s door, told him that she had been raped, and he called the police and MADA.

At first, the investigators assumed it was a break-in that had become complicated, but already in the early stages of the investigation they noticed that something did not fit this scenario. Although there was money, a mobile phone, a laptop computer and jewelry in the house, the intruder took nothing. According to the family’s testimonies, he even told the complainant: “I’m leaving you the money.” The investigators understood that the purpose was not theft, but a sex offense that had been planned in advance.

Due to the severity of the incident, the investigation was transferred from the Yavne station to the Central Unit of the Central District. The breakthrough came after lab tests showed a full match between the DNA profile found in the sperm cells sampled from the complainant’s body and the DNA profile of Abu Essa. At first, no match was found in the national database, but a family search led to a relative of the accused, and subsequently a sample was taken from Abu Essa himself and a full match was found.

In the ruling, the judges determined that this was scientific evidence with especially high evidentiary power. Forensic experts testified that the probability that another person is the source of the DNA is extremely small, and that even the defense claims regarding family proximity and the characteristics of the Bedouin population do not cast doubt on the findings. The judges ruled that no opinion had been presented that contradicted the conclusions of the state’s experts.

In addition to the DNA evidence, other circumstantial evidence was added, including location pings of the mobile phone, documentation of the accused’s vehicle trip, and additional findings that reinforced the determination that he was at the scene during the incident. The court held that the totality of the evidence leads to one and only one conclusion, beyond any reasonable doubt, according to which Abu Essa was the one who carried out the acts.

The judges placed full trust in the complainant’s testimony and determined that it was consistent, coherent, detailed and authentic. According to them, she did not try to exaggerate in her theory, made sure to distinguish between what she experienced herself and what she inferred, and described the trauma she went through in a reliable manner. They also noted that her account was supported by a series of external evidence, including neighbors’ testimonies, the messages she sent immediately after the incident, body-cam footage of the police officers, the medical findings, and the injuries documented on her body.

Family members also described the dimensions of the trauma. A relative of the complainant said that “it was an hour of hell. He tied her hands, legs, eyes and mouth. The child cried and screamed, and he threatened to murder her. She only begged him not to harm the children.” According to her, after he finished the rape, “he went to the refrigerator and drank beer. There was a laptop, a phone and money in the house and he took nothing. He told her: ‘I’m leaving you the money.’”

She also said that even years after the incident, its consequences still accompany the children. “She is mentally shattered. The children are traumatized. The four-year-old won’t stop saying what bad eyes he had. The little one doesn’t even talk about it, but all the time he shows tied hands behind his back, closed eyes and a closed mouth.”

This morning, more than three years after that night, the Central District Court in Lod is expected to set Abu Essa’s sentence, after it had already convicted him unanimously of all the offenses attributed to him: rape under aggravating circumstances, breaking into a residence, and abuse of a minor.

The questionnaire that will put you in order — which party best matches your positions?