See, for example, the recent words of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 6731/23 Strog v. Israel (July 16, 2024):
"Although the defendant has the right to remain silent as part of the immunity against self-incrimination, the rule is that in the absence of a reasonable explanation, a defendant's silence during his police interrogations may serve as a support for the prosecution's evidence (Criminal Appeal 2996/09 Dabour v. State of Israel, para. 11 (May 11, 2011); See also: Section 28(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Arrests), 5756-1996 and the judgment of my colleague Justice E. Stein in Criminal Appeal 6359/21 State of Israel v. Al-Amrani, paragraph 60 (September 8, 2022)); At the same time, it was determined that no argument would be heard by a defendant that his silence stemmed from advice he received from his lawyer (see judgment in Serious Crimes Case (Hai District) 42731-07-12 State of Israel v. Zahida (September 9, 2014)). The reason for this is known and clear - when the defendant chooses to remain silent where he is asked for an explanation, his silence is inconsistent with his expectation that he will be believed when he first presents his version during the defense case. The logic of the matter becomes clearer when a defendant is confronted by police investigators with investigative materials indicating his involvement in the commission of the offense, but he does not provide any explanation (Criminal Appeal 8328/17 Jaber v. State of Israel, para. 21 (July 28, 2019); Yaakov Kedmi on Evidence, Part One, 30, 305-309 (2009) (hereinafter: Kedmi)).
Similar to the aforementioned Strug case, the defendant before us was confronted with a long and detailed set of incriminating interrogation materials, and not only did he not provide any explanation for them, but he gave false and evasive answers time and time again, which he himself no longer possesses. Against this background, there is no escaping the conclusion that the defendant's conduct in the interrogation, his silence and his lies, substantially strengthen the strength of the evidence gathered against him. However, this does not summarize the implications of the manner in which the defendant chose to deal with the interrogation, and with the evidence that was hurled at him, since as a result of his conduct, the later version that he chose to present in his testimony in court, two years after the events themselves, is a suppressed version that by its very nature raises a deep concern about the degree of its reliability.