Remaining silent

I am not a lawyer nor any expert in law, but this does seem strange to me.

There was, allegedly, a shocking attempted rape the other day. The shock is especially great because the alleged perp is an officer in the army.

Guilty? Innocent? I have no idea. Let the trial run its course. Not my issue.

What did irk me is something the judge said in the pre-hearing after some initial claims were made and the basic evidence was laid out. After the alleged perp initially gave his version of the events with his denial, he has since remained silent.

the judge who reviewed the situation discussed some of the evidence and then he also said that the defendants silence makes him look guilty. Somebody innocent makes sure to proclaim it as often as he can in whatever way he can.

The judge might be right about that, and to us casual observers, remaining silent often does look guilty. However, the judge is not a casual observer. the judge is the legal expert deciding the case. To him, a defendant using his right of silence is not supposed to look more guilty because of it. The judge is supposed to use the evidence and decide the case (there is no jury in the Israel legal system) - to use the defendants silence, when he has the right to choose silence, no matter how guilty it might make him look, the judge should not be using that as part of his consderations.

Am I wrong? I saw the statement by the judge and this bothered me.