Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Center) 16924-10-22 State of Israel v. Iman Musrati - part 82

January 21, 2026
Print

0

The next statement, the second in number, was given to the defendant on September 1, 2022, at 10:20 [P/150 - Statement P/150, P/152 - Transcript] by interrogator Rafi Mizrahi.  At the beginning of the statement, the defendant referred to the phones, and confirmed that the three devices seized from Mazda belonged to him, and that the main subscriber used by him was the 401, while he did not remember the details of the other subscribers.  Later, the defendant is asked, and refuses, to write down letters and numbers that will be dictated to him, on a blank page, and explains that he is not willing to cooperate, even though it is made clear to him that the lack of cooperation is liable to strengthen the evidence against him.  The defendant says that the Mazda has been in use for about five months, and when he is presented with documents seized at the driver's door, he links them to his work in the jewelry field as part of "Premium Luxury Jewelry", and to the laundry services he needs, and confirms that all the documents belong to him.  He is then shown the paper clipping, about which he claims that he has no idea what it is and that he did not write the number on the document.

The interrogation goes back to the defendant's actions on the day of the arrest and he repeats the false version he gave in the first interrogation: I don't remember at all what I did that day, where I came from with my relatives and where we went, I have nothing to do with the dismantling of the plates and the loading of the Mitsubishi on the tow truck and the plates that were seized are not mine, but were implanted by the police.  The defendant is given another opportunity to provide an alibi for the day of the murder, but he continues to claim that he does not remember anything from that day.  According to him, he has no girlfriend or spouse, and he, unlike his family members, is not involved in any conflict.  He does not know the deceased and has no motive for murdering him.  The defendant even refuses once again to provide the codes for unlocking the phones.

Previous part1...8182
83...165Next part