Thus, for example, the researcher Biton noted that "If you take me back I do the same thing, the same thing but except maybe to write down some kind of memorandum as the honorable court said" (Prov. p. 831, s. 21).
The lack of internalization of the wrongdoing even after years has passed, is also learned from the answer of Investigator Biton, who was very proud of having succeeded in "extracting" data from the defendant regarding the motive.
He noted as follows: "Roy Motsafi, with all due respect, did not come on his own initiative and threw me the visa. It is also the work of the researcher Come and compliment the interrogator as well" (Prov. p. 838, s. 21).
- It would have been expected that the State Attorney's Office would criticize such severe conduct in real time, or at most in retrospect, but in practice, the various State Attorney's Office officials went "hand in hand" with the investigators, backed up that serious conduct, and focused on the attempt to "legitimize" it and its products.
This conclusion is necessary both in light of the fact that the decision not to interrogate the defendant with a warning was also made by the attorney accompanying him in real time, and in light of the fact that throughout the trial, as well as in the summaries, the State Attorney's Office argued that this was not improper conduct, but, at most, a "tolerable trick."
"Subterfuge" in an interrogation can be carried out in a number of ways that have been recognized as legitimate, but it is inconceivable that the State Attorney's Office would treat, both on the substantive level and at the level of terminology, the denial of the interrogee's basic rights as a "substrate", and all the more so – legitimate.
- The State Attorney's Office's summaries claim that "Viewing the visual footage of the interrogation teaches more than anything else about the manner in which the interrogation was conducted calmly and pleasantly, taking into account the interrogee and his needs". This position reflects a mistaken and problematic perception, according to which an interrogation that "tramples on rights" should be conducted by raising a voice against the interrogee or using physical violence, but it is clear that there is not always a connection between raising the voice and protecting the rights of the interrogee, and they can also be severely harmed "calmly and pleasantly." In this case, it was precisely the "calm" conduct that was well integrated with the desire of the investigative authorities to instill in the defendant a sense of security, and to neutralize all the defense mechanisms that are the lot of a person being interrogated under warning.
- The fact that significant milestones during the occurrence described above were not documented in the memosreflects an additional and independent aspect of that problematic conduct: (a) The same applies to the defendant's confession to transferring hundreds of thousands of shekels to Ben-Eliezer even before the interrogation – an event that was not documented at all in the memorandum (or in any other way) about which the defense learned from the defendant's statements in the recorded interrogation, according to which he said the words "already below". Later, Investigator Biton confirmed that he had indeed been told, but there was no satisfactory explanation for the lack of independent documentation of this material fact; (b) This is the case with regard to the consultation that Investigator Biton held with the accompanying attorney and the head of the investigation team, at the end of which it was decided not to change the status of the interrogation that had been planned in advance for the interrogation under warning.
The duty of documentation, which applies to investigative bodies, is not limited to data that could incriminate interrogees, but also extends to data and events that may, when the day comes, even be able to assist those interrogees – suspects – defendants.