Respondent: I agree that there is no possibility of arguing and I still repeat my position.
- On the same day, the police visited the home of the respondent's Perach camper. The action report indicates that according to the camper's mother, the respondent used to come to them on Sundays (although sometimes he did not come), from 5:00 P.M., for about three hours, and that he helped her son and daughter with their homework. The camper himself was not at home at the time, but his sister was, and according to her, the respondent also helped her with her lessons.
In addition, Sergeant Sweid called the Office Depot on the same day, where he was told that only the next day would it be possible to check whether the respondent had worked on April 18, 1999. The next day, a fax was sent on behalf of Office Depot, stating that the respondent did not work on that day.
- The picture did not change even after another questioning of the respondent on the same day, in which it was stated that the respondent said that he did not speak because the lawyer had advised him so. The respondent also stated that he knew that he was "tailor-made" in the file. In the questioning report authored by Sgt. Danny Mordechai, it was stated that he felt that the respondent was interested in speaking and telling the truth, but he refrained from doing so due to the advice of the lawyer [in parentheses: once again we encounter an interrogation report by way of a memorandum, and in my opinion, it would have been appropriate to collect an orderly statement from the respondent and not to write the matter in the manner of a memorandum].
Second Detention Extension
- On 20 July 1999, the police submitted a request to the court to extend the respondent's detention for an additional seven days in order to complete the investigation. In the application form, under the line "The facts that constitute the basis of suspicion against the suspect", it was stated "the testimony of the injured minor who identified the suspect on 16 July 1999. Additional confidential material found in the investigation file."
Attached to the court's review was a handwritten report, in which the following was written, inter alia: