Needless to say, in my opinion, the interrogators erred when they tried to advise the defendant not to maintain the right to remain silent (contrary to the advice of his defense attorney and even in an attempt to cast aspersions on this advice), noting that he was the one who was supposed to bear the consequences of his silence at the end of the day. I am of the opinion that a police investigator should not act in any way to obtain the "queen of evidence", i.e., a confession by the accused. Yes, police investigators must be careful not to cross the permissible limit, while invading into the area reserved for the relationship between the defendant and the defense attorney. In this context, I will refer to the Elzam judgment above.
In the same context, on one of the occasions, after a meeting was held between the defendant and his parents, during which the defendant cried and hugged his mother; Investigator Ben-Lulu chose to play the defendant the song "My Dear Mother." In his interrogation before us, Lulu tried to explain his actions by stating:
"It was in context, sorry, it was in context, you just take a certain thing and try somewhere to give him broad insurance when it actually relates to a certain course of investigation and I'll explain, isn't it that on the day of the murder Hattin's mother is looking for him endlessly, sending him messages, I beg my son to answer me, please, what happened. ..... And then I hurled those conversations at him, the same conversations that my mother, the dear mother of (the defendant) was supposed to answer because she was worried, so worried about her only son. And despite his mother's pleas, he did not answer her. He also belittled her."
(p. 150, line 27 to - p. 151, line 2).
Later in his remarks, the investigator tried to explain and explain his move. However, it is similar, without success. It is impossible to ignore the impression that this act came in order to exert additional pressure on the defendant and to put him in a broken trough that would bring him to a situation of cooperation with the investigative authorities.
- In addition, interrogator Ben Lulu was asked, as part of his testimony, to relate, inter alia, to the attitude he displayed towards the defendant in the early stages of the investigation, when he cast aspersions on his character, noting the defendant's "criminal" conduct. This was the question that was addressed to him, along with the interrogator's answer:
"Adv. Arbel: .... The head of the investigation team, why do you tell him that by keeping silent he is behaving like a child criminal, shit, why, we are still in the early stages of the investigation.