During his testimony in court, the defendant explained his conduct during the interrogation out of concern that exposing his involvement in the acts would get him into trouble and that he did not want to cooperate with the police, since he did not trust them. However, as is well known, such arguments do not have the power to negate the significant evidentiary consequences of maintaining silence, along with a long series of vague denials and blatant lies, throughout the entire police investigation, which as we will recall, spanning no less than six long interrogations. In the Supreme Court's rulings, there are many and clear references to such conduct, and I will cite as an example the words of the Honorable Justice Shoham from Criminal Appeal 8823/12 Shabtai v. Israel Land Area (July 1, 2014):
"A well-established rule is that the silence of a defendant during his interrogation by the police may serve as evidence that strengthens the prosecution's evidence against him. The basis of this rule lies in the understanding that, as a rule, the choice of an interrogee to remain silent during the interrogation is inconsistent with his innocence, since a person who is innocent will want to give his version in order to dispel the cloud of criminal suspicions that is hanging over his head. Therefore, alongside the right granted to every defendant to keep his mouth shut during the interrogation, the case law held that it is possible to conclude from the silence of the defendant that he has something to hide, and in the absence of reasonable and reliable reasons as to the decision to maintain the right to remain silent, the silence of a defendant will constitute evidence that strengthens the rest of the "positive" evidence that exists against him, including reinforcement of the circumstantial evidence that acts in accordance with his duty (Criminal Appeal 1707/08 Arish v. State of Israel, paragraph 27 (November 25, 2008); Criminal Appeal 3834/10 Wahba v. State of Israel (March 6, 2013))."