The two also discussed the possibility of making a deal with the police and the respondent's willingness to stand for a live identification lineup:
Informer: Have you thought about the possibility of a deal?
Respondent: A deal for what? For a deal, I have to give them information. I have nothing to give them. I'm not stupid. If there was something I would have already given...
[...]
Voiced: Are you ready to stand for a live identification lineup?
Respondent: I'm still waiting for the results. But assuming I believe I'm innocent, and I do. So I don't see any reason to hide myself, like.
Voiced: I ask you: Are you ready to stand for a live identification lineup?
Respondent: I think so. I don't see it as a problem. Even though it could incriminate me. In the end, if she recognized it once, there is no reason why she should not recognize it a second time.
[...]
Respondent: That's why until now we postponed it regarding an identification lineup. But in the end, there may be no choice. Only if I refuse, then it is, like, I have something to hide. And I have nothing to hide.
Speaker: So you're saying you refused until now?
Answer: Not exactly that we refused. We just tried to ignore it. Others who can take me out. Why give them something, me on a tray, as they say, about the fact that they can take me out. You have to have tactics, you have to have a head.
[...]
Dubbed: That's what I'm asking. So you didn't ignore it.
Answer: But even if it is. The court ruled that at the moment there will only be tests. So why would I go and agree to something that even a court has not asked for yet? Just because they ask? I don't have to put myself on a platter as if. You say to yourself: If she recognized me once, she can recognize me a second time. I mean. I'm not stupid.
In another transcription (documented in handwriting) from the same day, the respondent continues to insist on his innocence, explaining that he agreed to the examination. DNA Because he knows that he didn't get close to the minor, and that he's trying to remember what he did that day to strengthen his alibi.
- On the same day, the minor's father was given another notice regarding the circumstances of the respondent's identification at the supermarket. The father agreed to conduct a selection of glasses and reiterated the main points of his previous statement. In response to the interrogator's question whether his daughter reacted in a similar way on other occasions when she pointed to a person who resembled a rapist, the father answered in the negative, claiming that in other cases his daughter was calm and acted judiciously.
- According to Inspector Yitzhak Stern, the next day, on July 25, 1999, the minor and her parents arrived at the police station for the purpose of identifying the glasses, when upon arrival the minor noticed the respondent, who at the same time met with his lawyer. According to the description, the minor "immediately erupted in hysteria of crying, tears and tremors," and was taken to the youth offices, where she was calmed down.
Subsequently, the identification of the glasses was held, in the presence of the respondent's defense attorney, who even selected the sunglasses and arranged them as he wished. According to the memoranda of the children's investigator and the editor of the order, Inspector Stern, the minor immediately pointed to the respondent's sunglasses, noting that they were "most similar" but not completely identical. According to the minor, the assailant's lenses were darker, she thinks that the tip of the glasses was not plastic but iron (and explains that she didn't really see the tip of the glasses) and that they were more oval-shaped. A few minutes later, another identification lineup was held, and this time the minor said that the attacker's sunglasses were not among the glasses that were shown to her. I will note that from the two memoranda written on the subject, it is not possible to understand whether the same pair of glasses from the first order was also included in the second order, but apparently this was the case, i.e., in the second order the minor did not recognize the glasses.
- On the same day, the police presented the respondent with the informant who had been placed in his cell at the beginning of his arrest. The respondent was surprised, but stuck to his version that he was innocent. The interrogators confronted him with sentences in which he said, such as his statement that the cloister resembled, how she recognized that he was wearing glasses – to which the respondent replied, "It could have been an emission!" At this point, the respondent refused to answer further questions, saying that "I would better keep quiet, any answer will not look okay here," and continued to deny his involvement in the act.
When the respondent returned to the cell, he spoke with his cellmate, who was also an informant. This is what is stated according to a partial transcript, written in the handwriting of the researcher Yaron Wesker (emphasis added):