At this point, the order of identification continued. Regarding extras 2 and 3, the minor said, "Take it off"; Regarding Superintendent 4, the minor said, "I can't hear," and then "suspicious"; Regarding extras 5 and 6, the minor said, "less than a suspect"; Regarding Commissioner 7, the minor said, "Take it off"; As for Commissioner 8, she said, "Suspect." It should be noted that in this lineup of votes the respondent was Commissioner No. 6. I will note that according to the memoranda written by the legal advisor of the police station and two extras who participated in the parade, it was claimed that the defense attorney's intern, who was in the second identification order No. 4, lowered his voice and spoke in a soft voice in order to confuse the minor.
- On September 19, 1999, the respondent was interrogated again and repeated his alibi version, according to which on the day of the incident, he called from his apartment to the home of a Perach camper to inform him that he was late and had called Ruppin College. Later, shortly before he left the camper's home, he called Yoram Cohen in order to come to him and pay the rent for his father. Then he went home, and a friend of his named Eran called him about his studies and came to his house. The respondent confirmed that his report of the hours to Perach was inaccurate, and that he was not accurate when he recorded 15:30-19:30 instead of 17:30-21:30.
In response to the investigator's question as to why he went to pay Yoram Cohen, who for his part clarified that he was not under pressure to receive the money, the respondent replied that it was the request of his father, who was hospitalized at the time, and that he insisted on receiving a written receipt since it was his father's money.
- Two days later, on September 21, 1999, Sergeant Sweid called the respondent's Perach coordinator and asked if it was reasonable for a mentor to stay at the camper's home until 9:30 P.M. The coordinator replied that in principle, they allow to stay until 8 p.m., except in exceptional cases.
Eran, a friend of the respondent, was also interrogated on the same day. According to him, in view of the passage of time, he does not remember exactly what happened, but based on the output of the calls from the respondent's home, he assumes that the respondent called him at 21:34, and that he then jumped into the respondent's house. With regard to the call that left the respondent's home at 10:13 p.m., the friend confirmed that he was the one who made the call, since it was a phone number belonging to his mother's company, to whom he had contacted for advice regarding filling out forms for the National Insurance Institute. In addition, the friend confirmed that he did not remember that the respondent was in possession of a cell phone on a regular basis. The friend added that the respondent used to "babysitting" the neighbors' daughter.