Answer: It's a waste of time for me, I'll admit, it's better to admit than to get into trouble."
It is not superfluous to mention that the trick used by the police did not bear fruit, the respondent's powers were at his disposal and he continued to adhere to his version consistently, as is also evident from his words to the informant where he repeatedly says that he is not willing to admit to an act he did not do.
- It seems to me that the words of the District Court, which saw this as "crossing the line between permissible and forbidden." This court noted this in a case in which the police used a similar interrogation exercise and "fabricated" a police document in which it was stated that the defendant's fingerprints were found on a certain object. And this is what Justice Bach said in the same matter (my emphases – Y.A.):
"However, as I said, I am disturbed by the very trick that was used in this case. The use of certain tricks by the police should not be ruled out, even if they involve a degree of deception towards the suspect [...]
But we must demarcate boundaries for the use of such means, and in my opinion, the composition of false and 'fabricated' documents exceeds the permissible limit. There is a significant difference between not revealing the truth or even telling the truth to the interrogee and misleading him by composing false documents that claim to be real evidence. There is a danger here, that any dam will be breached. If the police and the prosecution are allowed to 'fabricate' false confirmation regarding the results of a fingerprint test, then there is no impediment to the forgery of the fingerprints themselves, as well as the examinations of the absentee examinations, autopsy examinations, statements of witnesses, signatures on checks and other documents, etc., it does not seem to me that a ploy that takes such an extreme and blatant form is legitimate, and there is even no intention to ultimately conceal the details of the trick from the court and from the accused" (Beer Sheva 22/87 Bitter v. State of Israel, IsrSC 41(1) 52, 54-55 (1987)).