Answer: Nothing, they brought me upstairs, they introduced me to someone, I recognized me almost immediately.
Voiced by: Well...
Answer: That's it, there are some two and a half sentences there that seem to bind me, serve as evidence against me, that's it, they tried again to talk to me that I would confess.
[...]
Voicer: In short, did you incriminate yourself with him?
Answer: Apparently, and I didn't do anything, will I go to jail? What about things I said?
- In another interrogation conducted for the respondent on the same day, he was asked about his alibi claim. The respondent confirmed that when he drove in his private car to the home of his Perach camper, he did not demand travel expenses. After he was presented with the report that he had filled out at the time to Perach, which showed that he had not filled out travel expenses for the day of the incident, the respondent replied that he did not remember specifically whether he had traveled to the camper's house that day by car or bus, and that, in general, in about 40% of the cases he traveled in his car and about 60% by bus.
On the same day, Inspector Stern met with the respondent's defense attorney and asked to be allowed to photograph the respondent's face. The defense attorney vehemently objected. Inspector Stern asked if he was ready for a vote-identification lineup, and the defense attorney objected to this as well.
On the same day, a plaintiff's statement was submitted to the Magistrate's Court according to Section 17(d) of the Arrests Law, according to which after an initial review of the material and after a preliminary hearing of the investigation file, the position of the State Attorney's Office is that it will be appropriate to file an indictment against the respondent and request that he be detained until the end of the proceedings.
Third Detention Extension
- On July 26, 1999, a motion was submitted to the court to extend the respondent's detention for a third time, for five days, in order to complete the investigation and file an indictment. The details of the facts that constitute the basis of the indictment read: "The testimony of the minor, confidential investigative material, the identification of the suspect by the minor, various exhibits linking the suspect to the offense."
During the hearing, the court (the Honorable Justice H. Groves) responded to the respondent's counsel's request to know the results of the examination.DNA, saying that the tests cannot obligate or negate the Respondent's involvement, and this is for technical reasons only.