A., the former Tourism Ministry employee who accused former president Moshe Katsav of rape, provided three different answers to the question of whether she had full sexual intercourse with Katsav while he served as tourism minister, according to police records of her testimony.

The different versions of the story were at the center of Katsav's case at the pre-indictment hearing held with Attorney General Menachem Mazuz in May. Any doubts they may have planted in the attorney general appear to have laid the groundwork for his decision not to charge the former president with rape.

Police repeatedly asked A. to describe the incident of alleged rape that was included in the draft indictment sent to Katsav's attorneys on January 23. When asked about whether penetration had taken place, A. first said no. The next time she spoke to police, she said repeatedly there had been penetration, but qualified it by saying it was "sort of a half-penetration." The different versions of the incident left open the question of whether she had full sexual intercourse with Katsav, or whether he may have assaulted her but not raped her.

	Advertisement

At a later stage, A. clearly recalled a second incident that was not clouded by various versions as was the first. After A. told police about that incident, Mazuz added a second charge of rape to the draft indictment in April.

There was no penetration

The first time A. was questioned by police about the initial incident, she was asked several times whether penetration took place during the incident she described as rape.

"I asked you if there was penetration or not," the investigator said.

"I don't want to answer," said A. "I'll tell you why yes and why no... I don't want to say no, because I don't want there to be anything that might cause him to come out clean from the whole story somehow. He can't come out clean, even just from my testimony."

In the same session, A. said: "I'm telling you and I will say that it was close, alright? And that's it."

"What does that mean, 'It was close'?" the investigator asked.

"To penetration, okay? And that's it," she said.

"Penetration?"

"I'm asking, asking you not to... with his sexual organ to your sexual organ and there's no penetration, then you call that 'no penetration'?"

"Yes."

"So write 'no penetration,' okay?" said A.

"Okay, this is what happened, this is a fact, a precise fact - between his sexual organ and your sexual organ there was no penetration from your perspective," said the investigator.

"Yes. You should understand that the whole time I was struggling with him."

"And there was no penetration."

"No."

Yes there was penetration

The second time A. spoke to police about the charges, on September 17, 2006, she said there indeed had been penetration.

"Do you remember that you asked me the million-dollar question?" A. asked. When the investigator answered in the affirmative, she said: "So the answer to it is yes."

A. said the incident took place in the ministerial bureau in Tel Aviv.

"It was evening," said A. "We came back from some event, I think it was at the [Tel Aviv] convention center. And then only the two of us were in the bureau, no one else was there. We sat on two chairs. His desk was far away. I sat down and he sat next to me. And then what I told you, I don't want to talk about it, he started by touching, and I'm, like, trying..."

"Where did he touch you?"

"The chest, on the upper portion. He tried to take my pants off, and as it was happening, I found myself suddenly on the floor, with him. And then he tried, I had on pants with elastic, and then there was suddenly some kind of struggle, and he pulled the pants."

Later, the investigator asked, "Did he lie on top of you?"

"Yes," said A.

"And he inserted his sexual organ?"

"Yes."

"Okay, how long did it take?"

"It wasn't, it was a few seconds, because all the time I was pushing him away," said A. "Listen, a few seconds can be an eternity, it could also be a second and a half, I don't know if it was two seconds or 10."

Sort of half-penetration

During the same session, A. qualified her response to the question of whether penetration took place.

"And you say that he penetrated, and then what?" asked the investigator. "Did he reach climax?"

"No, I... It was a kind of... sort of a half-penetration," said A. "He inserted his sexual organ but not all the way, because I pushed him. That ended that from my perspective."

Later on, A. said her memory of the incident was foggy, but reiterated that she was certain penetration had occurred.

"I remember it vaguely," she said. "I also think that he penetrated, sort of half, and I pushed him right away. There was, there was penetration."

"There was penetration?" the investigator asked. "Are you sure?"

"A thousand percent."

The testimony also raised the question of the extent to which the alleged sexual activity was forced. A. told police that Katsav had asked her to use protection.

"He told me he wanted me to use protection, and then I didn't actually use any," she said.

"Why did he tell you to use protection?" the investigator asked.

"Why?" repeated A. "Why? Because he wanted me to have sex with him, and he was afraid that... he was afraid for himself more than for me. That God forbid I shouldn't get pregnant or something like that. One time's enough... He wasn't worried about me, so you shouldn't have any doubts on that issue."

A. also indicated that she was afraid of losing her job if she didn't give in to Katsav's demands.

"There's a certain point where... look, I just don't have the strength to struggle, you understand?... So what if I get rid of him with a kick or a slap, and tomorrow he'll fire me, you understand?"

Related articles: