In this context, see the testimony of Investigator Biton, who noted: "This was certainly said on the same occasion to both the State Attorney's Office and to Tzachi Havkin, the head of the Special Operations Unit. and the decision There was no backing up and not questioning him with a warning..." (Prov. p. 807, s. 27 and see also p. 800, s. 26).
Despite the clear data that indicated the transfer of a very significant sum of money to an incumbent public figure, the interrogation of the defendant began as a witness interrogation and not as a suspect's interrogation.
- Viewing the interrogation CD shows that beyond the conscious decision not to interrogate the defendant with a warning, Highlights and Trees Investigator Biton explained to the defendant the difference between an "open" investigation and an "warned" interrogation, while making a clear statement that since this is an open investigation, he can and should feel free to tell everything that is on his heart.
The transcript of the interrogation reads: "Roy, look... Really, Roy, do me a favor, listen... It's an open message, I really ask you to really say what happened at any given moment, and every question I ask I don't just askThere will be questions I will ask and I already know the answer to them. Okay. There's nothing to hide, I'm not attributing it to you right now, I'm not attributing to you some offense, the investigation is not with a warning" (P/6A, p. 30, s. 33).
This trend, of sharpening the differences between an open investigation and an investigation under warning, continued later in the investigation, when the defendant addressed Motive to the delivery of the funds, at which point Investigator Biton told him:... That's why I'm charging you an open message, it's an open message" (P/6A, p. 32, s. 1); And: "As someone who was in the chain of giving the funds, okay so we ask you... It's still not in the warning" (P/6A, p. 32, s. 3).
- The investigation therefore continued without the police investigators warning the defendant, and when (according to the investigators) the suspicious picture of the transfer of funds became clear, Investigator Biton moved on to search for "the motive for the transfer of the funds", i.e., the actions that Ben-Eliezer carried out or promised to carry out for the defendant.
This is according to Investigator Biton when he began interrogating the defendant in relation to the consideration he received or did not receive from Ben-Eliezer, while emphasizing to him that the only difficulty for him (the defendant) was the "unpleasantness" of giving a version about his good friend Ben-Eliezer: