The explanations given by the investigators in court were flimsy and far from satisfactory, and they did not constitute an assumption of responsibility that could indicate insight into and internalization of the impropriety of their conduct.
Thus, for example, Superintendent Havkin noted that some of the considerations were not to harm the defendant during the interrogation with the warning involved in opening a case (Prov. p. 643, para. 17). With all due respect to this explanation, it is highly doubtful in my view whether the decision not to warn the defendant was based on the decision not to warn the defendant, even if only slightly, that the concern that a case would be "opened for the defendant" and in any case it is not possible to compare the "damage" that will be caused to a person by the very fact that he is interrogated with a warning, and the damage that could be caused to that person as a result of the denial of his rights as an interrogee, and later – the use of his words and the filing of an indictment against him. The same Havkin even explained that the investigation of the "motive" was legitimate, since "The question is not incriminating, the answer is incriminating" (Prov. p. 619, paras. 3-11). If we examine this statement from a general perspective, and follow the position of Chief Superintendent Havkin, we can say that there will never be a need for a warning interrogation, since questions never incriminate except in answers, and it seems to me that the absurdity of this does not require explanation. It should also be noted that Havkin was the interrogator who, even after the interrogation moved from an open interrogation to an interrogation with a warning, noted to the defendant that he expressed frustration at his entanglement in light of his friendship with Ben-Eliezer, the following: "You didn't get into trouble, what did you get into? Nonsense" (P/6A, p. 96, s. 4), to teach you that the same trend of softening and blurring continued despite the fact that Superintendent Havkin understood very well the meaning of the defendant's words in relation to the possibility of indicting him.