It should be emphasized, Because back' Hodaya Amsalem, Serves as an Investigation Officer at YAM."R North in the Murder Division. As part of the investigation here:, She served as the officer in charge and signed documents of a technical nature. Among other things, She signed, As mentioned above, On the object of the exhibit/35 which is a reference for the interrogation of a suspect-A minor without the presence of a parent. In her testimony before us, Referred to the circumstances of signing this document, And this is how her words were expressed:
"When it comes to a minor, he has the right, among other things, one of the rights is that a parent accompany him to the interrogation, In this particular case, a suspect was interrogated in the absence of a parent, There are several reasons for this, Among other things, This is also a minor who is under arrest, There is below, the appearance of the place, what are the circumstances, and there are also the reasons for the good of the investigation, a gag order has been imposed., Fear of disruption, Parents who live in the same area of the arena, And so I signed, I signed it, and therefore the parents were not in the interrogation" (pp' 210 For the record, Lines 14 -20).
During the cross-examination, When she was questioned about these words, Witness Amsalem tried to explain the motives and reasons that led her to sign such a document. At the end of all the endings, Thus on-According to the defense's arguments, This witness did not know how to provide a satisfactory explanation as to the reason for which it was decided to act so in the course of the investigation in this case.
In one of her answers, the witness noted: "The X's are not in every case, it's not what we fill out (It's not clear) In this particular case, the gag order we have seen that it is in the interest of the investigation to prevent thwarting, Preventing disruption is what we marked and this is my judgment at the time" (pp' 214 For the record, Lines 29 -31). More, Up Next, Noted, Because this is a dynamic investigation that relates to the type of offense and other things.
- Here is the place to note, Because there is no dispute as to the importance of the presence of a parent in the interrogation when we are dealing with a minor. After all, - Berry, that the legislature's provisions are not a dead letter. At the same time, The provisions of the Youth Law in this regard are relative and allow for deviation from them in the existence of the fixed circumstances In the section 9H of the Youth Law - This is in accordance with the needs of the investigation and the reasons set out in the section. In this case, As the witness noted, The Best of the Investigation and the Prevention of Disruption of the Investigation, The basis for her signature on the said document. In my opinion, In this context, There is no room for the determination that, In this case, there was some flaw in the investigative authority's actions regarding this issue. From the Community's Explanations, You can see, that the needs of the investigation are what were at the basis of its determination, According to T/35. At the same time, It should have been, In cases such as these, Explain and elaborate more thoroughly and broadly, the motives and considerations that were at the basis of the decision not to allow the presence of a parent in the defendant's interrogation/The minor.
The defense attorney's arguments
- The defense's arguments also related to the defendant's second interrogation, which was conducted by investigator Ben Lulu (A/110). As mentioned above, Researcher Ben Lulu, He took the defendant out of the interrogation room in Sobero where it would be easier for him to give his version and cooperate. The defendant and the interrogator went out to the yard for a period of nearly two hours. As claimed, Consideration must be given to the defendant's stay outside the interrogation rooms, In the open air, Duration about 2 hours, During the month of February when it is cold and tiring to stand outside.
- According to the defense attorney, Throughout the interrogation, one can discern the defendant's repeated requests to stop the interrogation and return to the interrogation room. Requests that fell on deaf ears. The defendant's complaints of leg pain were also the result of the prolonged standing and the extreme cold, To no avail. As claimed, All that interested the researcher Ben Lulu was, Continued Attempt to Internalize the Idea of the"Mistake" In the mind of the minor.
- The defense attorney referred to a number of quotes and selected excerpts from the same monologue that he said was - Suggestive, Exhausting and angry. It should be emphasized, According to the defense's version, This is not an investigation, but in an attempt to infiltrate and assimilate the idea of the"Mistake" In the mind of the defendant, So this is not an investigative proceeding, Rather, in a relentless attempt to get the defendant to stop his silence.
- Investigator Ben Lulu conducted the investigation in a method that did not include questions and answers, Or a regular dialogue, but by way of a monologue on the part of the same researcher when from time to time, The defendant was involved in the conversation. Ben Lulu began his conversation with the defendant with questions about Jewish tradition and his connection to religion, Continued with the story of - Cain and Abel and Other Stories About the Creator of the Universe. The interrogator even tried to convince the defendant that if he confessed, Because he committed the murder, His sentence will be the same as that of Cain, Kerry - He will receive a reduced sentence. This is enough to teach, Because we are concerned with an improper attempt to deceive the investigator Ben Lulu. Thus, According to the defense's arguments.
- Even after the defendant clarified to the interrogator, Ben Lulu repeats, Because he decided to follow the advice of his lawyer and maintain his right to remain silent, Investigator Ben Lulu did not let go of him and continued the conversation with the defendant. At certain stages of the investigation, it is evident that, Because the interrogator is the only speaker in the conversation when in the process, Tried to hint to the defendant that the police had ample evidence indicating his involvement in the murder. And more; The interrogator told the defendant that he was like a father to him and that, If he doesn't admit it, then his life will be miserable. Here it is., The Haganah approach, Conducting an investigation in this way, It deviates from the scope of permissible investigative activity at all, Especially when we were interested in interrogating a suspect-Minor.
- The defense attorney went on to refer throughout his summaries to certain excerpts from that transcript of the interrogation; When we read these passages, we can see about the discomfort, The fatigue and distress that characterized the defendant's feelings, This is as a result of the incessant pressure of the researcher Ben Lulu on him.
- Up Next, The learned defense attorney referred to Ben Lulu's testimony in court. According to the defense attorney, Evident, Because, This is a witness with considerable experience. Alongside this, He was found to be lying and even conveying a message, More than once, Evasive answers. The defense method, There is a fundamental flaw in the interrogator Ben Lulu's approach regarding his role as an investigator in general and as the head of an investigative team in particular. This is especially true with regard to Ben Lulu's reference to the minor's right to remain silent, The distinction that must be made between the interrogation of an adult and the interrogation of a minor on the substantive level, and the difference between a fair investigation that contains legitimate questions, and an attempt to dumb the interrogee's senses in order to prevent him from continuing to maintain his right to remain silent.
- Moreover, The Haganah approach, Investigator Ben Lulu noted in his testimony, Because his job is to make the boy-The defendant to speak and cause him to stop maintaining his right to remain silent. On the other hand,, The interrogator used sentences that were said specifically for the recording and confirmed, About-According to the defense, Their entire purpose is to create a presentation, According to him, Ben Lulu respects the minor's right to remain silent. In this context, The defense attorney noted, Because this approach may have been right before 30 Years, But it stands in contrast to the prevailing approach in case law today, According to her - The Role of the Investigator to Reach the Truth, This includes allowing the interrogee to give a version while presenting questions and evidence, Therefore, an approach should not be adopted according to which the purpose of the interrogator's activity is to make the interrogee speak. This is doubly valid, When the interrogee explicitly states that he is doing so (Intention - Maintaining the right to remain silent) On the advice of his lawyer.
- The defense also made claims regarding the qualification of the interrogator Ben Lulu as a youth investigator and regarding the lack of professionalism he demonstrated in this regard. The defense attorney also raised arguments against the method of conducting the interrogation, in which the investigator did not actually respect the "The right to remain silent".
- Against the background of the above, Investigator Ben Lulu was interrogated by the defense in relation to the manipulative exercises he allegedly performed, While conducting a suggestive monologue with the defendant, It also included a story about Cain and Abel, Examples of Accidental Murder, An attempt to persuade the minor to give a version that would lead to an offense less than murder, An attempt to mislead the minor by falsely representing that the police have a great deal of evidentiary material in their possession that incriminates him in the commission of the offense, Using religious contexts and trying to persuade the minor, Because it is worthwhile for him to express regret and admit because "Who admits and leaves Yeruham"; An example of a case of a minor named "IV' A" who listened to the advice of the interrogator Ben Lulu and was sentenced to - 6.5 Years in prison and, The defense did not lose sight of the fact that investigator Ben Lulu forced the defendant-The minor stood outside the station rooms, For about two hours on a rainy and cold day.
- According to the defense's version, Researcher Ben Lulu's Answers to the Questions Addressed to Him, In this context, Unacceptable. Ben Lulu, that he knew during his cross-examination, Because there is no point in denying what was recorded on the tape recorder, Select Reply, Because he does not see anything wrong with the means he has taken. As part of his summaries, The learned defense counsel referred to the various statements made by the interrogator during his testimony before us.
- Investigator Ben Lulu was also asked about the reason behind the lack of visual documentation of the interrogation exercise that took place outside, and he replied by noting, that there is no such possibility and there is no such ability. (pp' 138 For the record)
- Please note, that in the summary of her arguments, the accuser skipped this part of the investigation and the learned arguments of the defense attorney.
Discussion and Decision - The Second Interrogation by Investigator Ben Lulu
- For the sake of cleanliness, I will note, Because at the end of the day, Even after his second announcement, The defendant continued to maintain his right to remain silent, So that interrogation did not yield a confession and/or any version other than the repeated claim that - He doesn't have (Kerry -To the Defendant) What to say about the guilt and the questions directed at him. Evident, that the defendant did not cooperate with his interrogators and made do with certain sterile statements, emphasizing , Time after time, Because "He has nothing to say". Over the course of about two hours, Investigator Eli Ben Lulu tried to extract some information from the defendant, To no avail. I will note, Because during that interrogation, The defendant also answered the question regarding the place where he was staying on the night of the incident, stating that, Because he was in the house and did not come out of it during all hours of the night, Until the next morning. Since the investigator had information according to which, The defendant was not at home on the night of the incident, He tried to confront him with the opposite version held by the police. Hall, He did not receive any reference from the defendant.
Even if we let go for a moment, Because this is an illegal and illegal interrogation exercise, Thus, this exercise did not bear fruit. This exercise had no actual effect on the defendant's version at that moment. The defendant remained steadfast in his position throughout the interrogation. Even more than that, Not only during this investigation, But in all the other stages of the investigation, The defendant continued to maintain his right to remain silent while denying any involvement in the incident attributed to him. It turns out that, Maximum, The question at hand in relation to this interrogation exercise, She - If we reach a conclusion, Because this is an improper investigation, Then - What effect did this have on the defendant?-The minor and his spirit, and/or the little information he gave to his interrogators.
- It should be emphasized, This investigation was not documented in visual footage, But if, Just my voice. I will discuss the importance of visual documentation later. Hall, This is the place to note, Because the reason for the lack of visual documentation is not clear enough. Investigative witness Ben Lulu testified in this context when he said: "... Visual Documentation, Visual part, The majority is visual, And some of my exits to the same place I usually hang out there, Yes? There is no choice, I can't film that course of interrogation ... I don't have a means" (pp' 138 For the record, Lines 28 -31) Up Next (pp' 139 For the record) The witness reiterated (In response to a question addressed to him, And she - If requested means of visual documentation) Because there is no ability to do so. Needless to say,, Because, Unable to comprehend, Why did investigator Ben Lulu choose to take the defendant out of the interrogation rooms?, Knowingly, Because, Out there, No technical capability to be tracked by visual documentation, Even according to the words of the researcher Ben Lulu himself.
The witness Moshe Shabo, who was in charge of the technical monitoring area in the Northern District and the operation of such technical equipment, testified in this context as he noted, Because he is the one who installed the relevant equipment for the purpose of monitoring. According to his testimony, Deciding whether to record visual or audio documentation, is not in his hands. According to him,, He does what is asked of him, Meaning - His actions came against the background of the needs and requests of the investigation team. (pp' 199 For the record, Lines 28 -31).
- Reading the transcript of the conversation alongside hearing the recording regarding the defendant's second interrogation, Teaching about a situation from which it arises, Because most of the time, Investigator Ben Lulu was the one who took the reins and spoke at length, Spoke to the defendant's ears, While the defendant provided short answers, Occasionally. More, You can get an impression of the interrogator's incessant pleas and inquiries, Again and again, To the defendant in a futile attempt (Most of the time) Convincing him to speak. In this context, II"The defendant referred to quotes from the course of that conversation/Investigation, but it would be superfluous to repeat the same sayings. The impression that is created is, Because indeed the researcher Ben Lulu wanted to create a comfortable atmosphere (located on the margins of the investigation process) and to convey to the defendant that he can trust him and that he is like a father to him. More, Listening to that recording we can learn about the story of Cain and Abel and the moral behind it. Yes, The researcher brought more stories from the Bible"Noting the statement that "Admitting and leaving Yeruham".
- Listening to the recording gives the impression, that the interrogator did try to persuade the defendant to speak and cooperate with his interrogator. From the testimony of Ben Lulu (pp' 102 For Transcript Lines 11 -12) The following arise: "If he chose to maintain his right to remain silent, May he be silent, My job is to get him to talk". More in this context, Please note, Because the interrogator Ben Lulu did not let go of the defendant and urged him to give up his right to remain silent. Among other things, he told him: "You'll need to tell... There is no what is a program as you request" (pp' 24 Row 32 For a transcript of T/110). Investigator Ben Lulu was asked about his words and remarks, and he replied by mentioning, Because he does not see anything wrong with that. (see p.' 136 For the minutes of the hearing).
More in the same context, The witness Ben Lulu testified as follows: "I say that I will never go between the things that concern a client confidentiality lawyer and the things in your instruction towards your suspect, But on the other hand, I'll do anything, All, All I can do, Do everything to make him speak, Just to talk to me" (pp' 141 For the record) And later on., He testified as follows: "So that in the end there will be an orderly confession and a reconstruction, This is the queen of evidence, Every researcher wishes to get there, Bring the entirety of the evidence before the court" (pp' 141 For the record).
- Even when the defendant said several times - Enough, And that he has nothing to say or is lying to him, Investigator Ben Lulu continued the investigation. See - In this context, Answers of the researcher Ben Lulu Ltd.' 137 For the record, Name, Among other things, Specify, No damage was caused to the defendant , When he said so,:
"Adv. Arbel: I tell you, the minor is enough for me, I'm cold,