In this context, reference can also be made to P/51 (the output of calls and messages that shows the concentration of text messages to and from the defendant's mobile phone between January 15, 2016 and February 26, 2016, which was conducted by the policeman Huli). The following are text messages that took place between the mother and the defendant on the night of the murder:
1 hour 02:50:04: "Where are you? There is a police here who will answer me immediately";
1 hour 02:57:20: "Please answer me,?? The police around the house where are you";
1 hour 03:20:44: " Correspond with me";
1 hour 03:20:54: "I have reason to be concerned?";
1 hour 03:21:45 The Defendant Answers His Mother: "Not a good night, Mom loves you"
And again a series of messages from the mother to the defendant:
1 hour 08:02:24: "Where does she live in the morning I will pick you up";
1 hour 08:02:27: "Please I'm really shaking";
1 hour 08:02:28: "In the morning they come to take the bvr"
- According to investigator Ben Lulu, the defendant's name came up for the first time as a result of the mother's behavior. According to him, she was the one who gave birth to the primary-basic suspicion regarding the defendant's involvement in the murder (p. 97, lines 25-27). As the investigation progressed, this suspicion intensified; This is for the following reasons:
- While watching one of the security cameras that were caught near the scene of the murder, a figure was identified who was chasing the deceased; At a later stage, it was clarified that this figure was none other than that of the defendant (p. 98, lines 2-6). The defendant even confirmed this himself at a later opportunity.
- Communication Outputs (P/138), from which suspicious conduct on the part of the defendant emerged, when immediately after the murder he called his friend S. and spoke to him. Apart from that, he spoke with attorney Zohar Arbel, and here, as alleged, the suspicion was further strengthened. This was late at night (p. 98, lines 7-13).
- From that stage onwards, when the suspicions against the defendant intensified, it was decided to take additional investigative actions. First, a simulated reconstruction was done at the scene. It should be noted here that during the reconstruction, the defendant was present at the scene and made two phone calls, one to S. and the other to attorney Zohar Arbel. This intensified the suspicion even more. At that time, it was decided to move on to another stage of the investigation, using the services of a special unit (whose details are under a certificate of confidentiality), which in turn carried out an investigative exercise in such a way that the same unit referred two people to contact the defendant in order to talk to him and to talk to him about the murder incident. Initially, after an initial conversation, the defendant postponed the conversation with these two men, to a later date, and later, when they met again, the defendant stated that there had been a mistake in identification (Ben Lulu's testimony, p. 99 of the transcript, lines 1-3).
- Upon his arrest, the defendant was rushed to the Afula police station where he was subjected to a preliminary interrogation, after he was given the right to consult with an attorney (see the defendant's first interrogation in P/77, p. 3, lines 5-8, where the defendant confirmed that prior to his interrogation he was given the right to consult with his lawyer). As part of that interrogation, he spoke little and usually chose not to speak at all. According to interrogator Ben Lulu, he thought at the time that it would be more comfortable for the defendant to speak outside the police station rooms. Therefore, he put a tape recorder on his body and went out of the room with the defendant to the station compound, where he interrogated the defendant for about an hour. In the course of that interrogation, the defendant stated, inter alia, that at the time of the murder he was at home (p. 99 of the transcript, line 12). Hence, where the defendant's alibi was refuted, the suspicion arose that he was lying. Given the above, and in continuation of the outline of the investigation, the defendant was subsequently taken to the police station in Hadera, where the exchange between the defendant and his interrogators during the ride was recorded. When they arrived at the station in Hadera, the defendant was put in a cell with informants when, but a short time later, he confessed to them, both of the murder and of setting fire to a car, at the time before the murder occurred. This confession served as the middle bolt of the facts of the indictment filed against the defendant, as detailed above. (See the testimony of Ben Lulu, transcript of the hearing of 8 March 2017).
- Up Next, The defendant was interrogated several times (As detailed below) And for the most part,, He preserved the right to remain silent, Did not cooperate, He did not give a version and did not answer many questions addressed to him. Needless to say,, Because we are dealing with a large number of long and protracted investigations, and still, During them, The defendant maintained his right to remain silent.
- In Between, Also arrested'. In the context of this witness as well, an interrogation exercise was carried out, documenting a meeting that took place (Between this witness and the defendant) In the corridors of the police station when they were both silent, (J' signaled the defendant to shut up and conveyed messages to him in gestures), Hall, At the end of the meeting, The defendant began singing, When from the lyrics of the poem the accuser sought to teach us, About the defendant's attempt to convey a message to me' Who teaches, Because the defendant remained silent during his interrogation. (See in this context P/54; a report of the viewing and transcription of the interrogation exercise dated March 15, 2016 between the defendant and Y., which was conducted by the interrogator Huli. Yes, see the interrogation disc, P/55 and a transcript of the same exercise - P/57).
- As we can see, the facts of the indictment were fed mainly by the confession, as it was given by the defendant to the informants. It is clear that, had it not been for this confession, the accuser would not have had a sufficiently clear version and/or a clear factual description of the events on the night of the murder. In this context, we can refer to the testimony of the prosecution witness, Eli Ben Lulu, who headed the investigation team in this case. His words are expressed on page 99 of the minutes of the hearing (between lines 18-28): "When we learned about this murder, we learned from the suspect, he said that he was in a dispute with Y. as a result of that dispute of Y., they burned vehicles on both sides, ... And he understood that the cyclist who was actually completely camouflaged, as I described earlier at the beginning of my testimony, he thought it was Y. and so he ran to his house, fetched a knife, stabbed him, how did he say, in one of the stabbings I felt that the knife had gone all the way in, and at the end, at the end of the murder he said that he came to the house, washed the knife that was stained with blood and put it back in its place...".
On the Confession to the Informants and the Legal Implications for It - The Admissibility of the Confession
- Admittedly, The defendant maintained the right to remain silent that accompanied him throughout his many statements. Alongside this, Already in the act of dubbing that took place on the first day of his arrest, The defendant confessed to everything attributed to him in the indictment. Not only that., As alleged by the accuser, As part of a previous dubbing that took place prior to the defendant's arrest (Early in the day he was arrested), A statement was made by him according to which - This is an act that he committed against the background of "Mistaken identification" and that it has the power to serve as"First Thanksgiving". About the Normative Outline of Admissibility of Confessions to Informants, The discussion in this chapter will turn.
- For the purpose of examining the admissibility of an external confession of a defendant, And in light of the halacha as it was established inCriminal Appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v' Chief Military Prosecutor, P"46(1) 461 (Below: "The Issacharov Rule"), Two avenues for examining this question have been outlined in case law; The first; The Statutory Test Anchored in the Teaching Section 12 To the Ordinance The Evidence Determining, that an external confession of a defendant will be admissible only where it has been proven that the confession was "Free and voluntary." This is in order to protect, Mainly, On the right of the interrogee to the integrity of body and soul, As well as his right to autonomy of free will (The Issacharov Rule, pp' 517) When each case must be examined on its own merits and asked - Did the improper interrogation methods used actually lead to harm? "Significant and severe" in the autonomy of his will and the freedom of choice of the interrogee in giving his confession (The Issacharov Rule, pp' 520 -522). It was further determined, that the use of means involving such an injury will lead to the invalidation of the confession, Even when there is no concern about its veracity (The Issacharov Rule, Paragraph 32).
- In accordance with the case law, An admission shall be considered as having been given in the manner of "Free and voluntary.", Only where external means of pressure were not applied to collect it - As opposed to pressure that originates from the interrogee's psyche - which were intended to deny the interrogee the ability to choose between giving a confession and refraining from giving it (Criminal Appeal 1520/97 Haddad vs. the State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (18.12.00)). Among the external means of pressure that are considered improper means of investigation that have been discussed in case law, we can find these; Temptation, The Shah and the Use of Unfair Interrogation Tricks. (Regarding the Ancestors of the Invalid, See also - Criminal Appeal 9808/06 Sanker N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (29.7.10)). In addition to, Determined, Because a violation of the right to consult with a lawyer may also lead to, In certain circumstances, Invalidation of a Confession (See - For example, the Issacharov ruling). And more, As for the invalid ancestors that may lead to the invalidation of a confession, See - The book of Front, Some of the evidence Sunday, 2000"IV - 2003, pp' 53:
"A review of the case law shows that it is possible to concentrate and classify the factors that lead to the disqualification of Hodaya into five separate groups: