On the other hand, in his statement to the police, about two hours after the phone call, the father said that since the incident, he had subtly tried to extract details from his daughter about the assailant's appearance, and about a week earlier, his daughter had pointed to a soldier who resembled the attacker. According to the father, as he was walking home, he saw a young man who resembled the description given by his daughter. He saw the guy go into the supermarket, and hurried home to call his daughter so she could be impressed by him. Upon their arrival at the supermarket, the father and daughter passed by the respondent-suspect, and according to the father, as soon as they passed by the respondent, the minor asked to leave the supermarket, adamantly refused to stay in order to try and hear his voice, and "got under pressure as if things had just happened." The father was forced to bring his daughter home, because he said she "went into hysteria and she said it might be him." To the investigator's question about how exactly the minor behaved, the father replied, "Like the night she entered the house after the incident, after the rape... Crying hysterically with her hands on her face, she didn't want to go home alone... I should have brought her right away. This crying has been there twice since this incident." The father added that he was surprised to see the respondent enter the exact same building in whose yard his daughter was attacked, because he spoke with him briefly and that in response to his question the respondent identified himself as Regev.
- On the same day, the respondent was arrested and questioned by the interrogators (the interrogation report of 18 July 1999 relating to the interrogation of 16 July 1999 – Exhibit 26 to the State Exhibits) and confirmed that he did indeed live in the building in whose yard the offense was committed. According to the investigator, Sgt. Shaul Sweid, in response to his questions, the respondent said that he had not had sex for more than two years and that he had no girlfriend. According to the report, the interrogator presented the respondent with the newspaper article describing the rape and told him, "I actually think that there was no cruel rape and that in my opinion you behaved nicely to the child, gave her a drink, accompanied her towards the house, asked her questions, had a dialogue between you and these are things that indicate your character and in my opinion you need treatment." According to Sweid, during the interrogation the respondent did not even rise up once to deny his involvement, but rather held his hands down and refused to look into the policeman's eyes (the date is dated 16 July 1999, even though it was written on 18 July 1999, two days after the questioning. According to Officer Sweid, the reason for this is that July 16 was a Friday, and he completed the memorandum only on Sunday (Transcript, pp. 261-262).
- In a statement taken from the respondent at 11:10 p.m., he spoke about his weekly schedule, where on Sundays – the day of the week in which the offense was committed – he worked, but later said that in the morning he studied at home and in the afternoon he visited his pupil at Perach. The respondent also detailed his agenda regarding the rest of the week. In response to a question about whether he wears sunglasses in the evening as well, the respondent answered, "In order to prevent the dust. Since I have lenses in the evening, I can see well in sunglasses."
In a memorandum written by Sgt. Danny Mordechai on the same day (July 16, 1999), it was written that the respondent denied the allegations against him and that at a certain point during the interrogation, the head of the team, Yitzhak Stern, entered the room, and the respondent said to him, "What do you want me to confess to [sic] – Y.A.], this is not a case of stealing gum from the grocery store, it's not an easy case." It is also noted in the memorandum that the respondent lowered his eyes all the time.