Respondent: In consultation with my lawyer, it was determined that he only agreed to a DNA test and anything else, I want to talk about whether he is a lawyer.
Interrogator: In your first interrogation that I interrogated you, you detailed what you used to do all week. Tell me what you did on July 18, 1999.
Answer: As I said, I don't remember exactly what happened on that date, but it was a prime day, so there are two options: either I went to the Vetikim neighborhood to hold a meeting of the Farah volunteer or I worked at the Shefayim office until 23:15.
[...]
Investigator: I present you with an expert opinion from the National Headquarters from the laboratories that deal with DNA testing. Are you ready to read this?
Respondent: Yes
Interrogator: Did you understand what you read from the report?
Respondent: I understood that there was DNA evidence against me.
Interrogator: Do you see even now when all the possible evidence that is needed is found, you see even now that you don't want to get help?
[...]
Answer: I still feel that I don't need help.
Interrogator: Why did you tell me you were going with sunglasses at night?
Respondent: As I said before, when I wear lenses, I'm afraid dirt will get into my eyes, such as dust or leaves from trees, so I wear sunglasses.
At this stage, the investigator asks the respondent about his sexual habits and whether he had partners, and again, we will not go into detail due to the privacy of the individual.
Investigator: Even after reading the expert's DNA farm with your own eyes, don't you understand that there is a problem for you here?
Answer: I understand that there is a big problem here. I understand that on the one hand, all the evidence is against me and there is also identification, but I am not aware that I did not do it.
Interrogator: How come you don't admit when there is such evidence against you?
Respondent: I was always taught not to admit what you don't do, but if you did something wrong, then you can't lie.
Interrogator: But the evidence says that you did and there is no possibility of arguing with this evidence. What is your reaction?