Regarding the claim that as part of the ploy and in order to mislead the defendants, the investigation was conducted at the Sderot station, Superintendent Michaeli replied that this was not a ploy but rather an obvious action, since "If I am in an incident that happened in the sector of the city of Sderot when my mother unit is sitting in Ashdod, then I will be negligent if I do not focus my activity there. And I will also do all the activities for at least the first two days while I and my people are there. Especially when it's a 50-minute drive, an hour." He further added that when he arrived at the house of defendant 2, he identified himself as a police officer and did not present himself as a policeman from Sderot (p. 217).
Regarding the interrogation of Defendant 2 by the Commander of the Intelligence Unit, he explained that the Commander of the Investigation Unit arrived at the station shortly before the end of the interrogation of Defendant 2, and he himself asked Investigator Malichi to guard Defendant 2, since he wanted to be updated by Investigator Benita about the interrogation. While he was sitting to update the commander of the investigation on the progress of the investigation, the interrogator Malichi came in and said that defendant 2 wanted to tell something about the murder, but he was afraid and wanted to know if they could protect his family; Investigator Malichi asked the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit if he would mind going in with him, since he had told Defendant 2 that he was the senior authority, and that he happened to be there. Superintendent Michaeli asked Investigator Malichi to record the conversation, and in light of the urgency and the fact that they were at another station without all the means at their disposal, an audio recording was made only (p. 211). Regarding the allegations of infringement of Defendant 2's right to counsel, he replied that his interrogators are very careful to uphold the right to counsel, and this is clearly evident from the documentation of the defendants' interrogations; and that the law requires them to explain to each suspect his rights, and there is no relevance in this matter to the nature of the offense, the existence or absence of a criminal record. According to him, even if defendant 2 did not understand his right at the first stage, after the interrogation he entered into another interrogation and was warned again (p. 212).