In his cross-examination, Detective Hamami clarified that on that day he was attached to assist in the investigations of the murder case, and when he was asked to protect Defendant 1, he already knew that he was suspected of murder, but he did not remember who told him this. He also stated that before that, when he went out with defendant 1 to bring the drugs, he did what was asked of him and did not know what the connection of the drugs was to the interrogation; He added that "the truth is that it didn't interest me so much, murder, drugs, I just guard it" (pp. 262-266). According to him, he knows that he is not an investigator, that the conversation between him and Defendant 1 was only small talk and did not spill over into the subject of the investigation and the suspicions against him; About half an hour later, Defendant 1, with tears in his eyes, told him to call the investigation officer because he wanted to tell the truth; And when he informed Superintendent Michaeli of this, he instructed him to wait for the interrogator to Zami and not to speak to Defendant 1 (pp. 266-268). In response to the defense attorney's question, he confirmed that he may have spoken to Superintendent Michaeli twice while he was waiting for the interrogator to arrive (pp. 276-277).
In response to questions from counsel for Defendant 1, Detective Hamami denied the claim that he had told Defendant 1 about Defendant 2's statements during the interrogation, or that he had told him to save himself and that he should tell him that Defendant 2 had committed the acts; He insisted that not only did he not speak to Defendant 1 in connection with the interrogation or in connection with Defendant 2, but he did not know at all what Defendant 2 said in the interrogation (pp. 271, 273-274).
When asked why he wrote the memo only a few days later, he replied that he wrote the memo when he was asked to do so, and that he was a detective and not an investigator and did not attribute importance to it. and explained that he had no idea what was going on in the investigation file (p. 269). When asked how the arresting claimant knew in the detention hearing that took place on March 1, 2018, that he was the one who took defendant 1 to smoke (N/2), if his report was written only on March 5, 2018, he replied that he did not know, that it was an investigator in the unit who might have seen him, and that in any case he should be questioned (pp. 271-272).