And if this is true with regard to the suspicion of transferring funds in the amount of NIS 260,000, all the more so when we are dealing with a person who confessed, while waiting for interrogation, to transferring an additional sum of NIS 500,000 to Ben-Eliezer.
It seems to me that it is not for nothing, and after hearing these words, Investigator Biton asked to consult with the accompanying attorney and the head of the investigation team, but even these two parties refrained from doing what is obvious and required by law, and to give the necessary instruction to change the status of the interrogation even before it began from the status of "interrogation of a witness" to the status of "interrogation of a suspect."
- The serious conduct was not limited to the decision not to conduct an interrogation with a warning (which led to the denial of all of the defendant's rights), but was also characterized by a series of "explanations" that the interrogator provided to the defendant regarding the differences between an "open investigation" and an "investigation with a warning." Time after time, Detective Biton explained to the defendant that he had to tell the whole truth, that there was no reason to give reductive versions, when The Clear Message What emerges from Investigator Biton's statement is that the defendant can provide any data that is asked about him without fear of self-incrimination.
- And if this were not enough, the serious conduct of the investigative authorities continued with regard to the manner in which the "motive" was interrogated, i.e., those actions that were allegedly carried out by Ben-Eliezer for the benefit of the defendant. Investigator Biton chose to interrogate the defendant on this issue as well, while creating a "smokescreen" around the legal significance of his words, and without sufficing with receiving a specific answer, he continued to explain with the defendant all the relevant data on this issue.
In his testimony, to the court's questions, it was clear that Investigator Biton had difficulty providing clear answers to the question of why, even after the defendant's description of Ben-Eliezer's assistance in obtaining the visas, he did not stop the interrogation immediately and moved on to the interrogation with a warning, until he finally agreed to admit that the defendant's answers ignited "sparks of suspicion" ("At this stage, he tells me that he gave Fouad helped him with a visa, okay, there is a matter of sparks here, language must be stopped, yes, there is a matter of suspicion here as far as I am concerned As a researcher...", Prov. p. 843, s. 26 to p. 846, s. 13).
- Only after the defendant "undressed" all his defenses, and provided all the relevant data regarding the transfer of the funds to Ben-Eliezer and the assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to B&E, was there a consultation with the investigative authorities, and it was decided to move on to the interrogation with a warning.
- Sometimes it is better late than never, but in this case, the latter was very late, and it did not cure all the flaws and failures that occurred in the conduct of the investigative bodies and the State Attorney's Office.
The answer to the question of whether this was deliberate conduct or a mishap is, unfortunately, learned from the facts, and I can only determine that the conduct of the investigative bodies, with the active backing of the State Attorney's Office, was intended to neutralize the defendant's defense mechanisms, and it amounted to crossing lines, trampling on the basic rights of the suspect and the interrogee, all while trying to extract from the interrogee criminal data that would enable them to formulate an evidentiary basis that would enable the filing of an indictment.