In addition to this, The interrogators even allowed themselves to insult the minor and violate his basic right to dignity, While breaking his spirit and his mental fortitude.
- The learned defense attorney, In his summaries, he referred to the testimonies of Investigator G'Yahad Abu Salah and Marza Abzah in court in relation to this interrogation exercise, From these he wished to teach us that the interrogator'Hood is not qualified to serve as a youth researcher, and that according to the investigator's personal approach,, Anyone who remains silent is guilty, and anyone who chooses to maintain the right to remain silent teaches himself to have something to hide. More, The defense attorney pointed out that the interrogator saw nothing wrong with his conduct vis-à-vis the defendant, When he described him as a criminal because he maintained his right to remain silent. Yes, He did not see anything wrong with the remark that, The lawyer who advised the defendant will not sit in prison with him. Yes, According to the claim, The researcher went so far as to do'Haad cursed the defendant throughout the ride and his statements were another kind of arrow that pierced the defendant's soul-The minor; All this just before he entered the lion's den (Intention - To the dubbing booth).
- According to the defense attorney, Investigator C'Haad did not understand the impropriety that lay in his actions and conduct. He even blatantly interfered in the relationship between the defendant and his lawyer and tried to get the defendant to speak, In order to be lenient with him, Supposedly, Regarding the offense attributed to him, At the end of the proceeding. And more, The same interrogator also tried to break the defendant's spirit by misleading him at the time he stated to him, that the police have a lot of evidence and that he is expected to be imprisoned for years in prison.
- The defense attorney also referred to the testimony of interrogator Mirza, Noting, Because indeed, This researcher has the credentials to serve as a youth researcher. Hall, His answers indicate that he does not know the difference between the soul of a minor and that of an adult.. Even this witness does not understand the essence of the right to remain silent and the right to consult.
Discussion Regarding the Third Investigation
- For the purpose of deciding the parties' claims, I listened to the recording of the subject of the third interrogation, I looked at the transcript, And I carefully examined the testimonies of the witnesses who took part in that investigation; I will preface and point out, Because this interrogation also did not lead to a confession and/or to provide a version that could complicate the defendant in committing the offense. The defendant continued to maintain his right to remain silent throughout the trip until he reached Hadera. During that interrogation, The defendant said again, Because he didn't leave the house on the night of the murder (A/76, pp' 3 Row 31).
- The question at hand in this context concerns, The effect of that interrogation on the defendant's psyche and state of mind. Is this an improper investigation and what is the extent of its impact on the defendant?. Yes, The questioner will ask - If we are indeed interested in an improper investigation; Then, What are the implications of such an investigation?, Even if the defendant remains committed to his position that - He did not commit any offense.
- Investigator C'Huad Abu Salah was the dominant interrogator during this investigation. Evident, Because throughout the interrogation, The interrogator tried to persuade the defendant to speak and give a version. In this context, The learned defense attorney, He referred to many quotes from the transcript and it would be superfluous to repeat the same things. Evident from that interrogation segment, that the defendant did mention to the interrogator that he was hungry and exhausted. He even expressed himself by saying, Because he is hot and he feels a feeling of suffocation. Moreover,, He noted, Because they made him sick and in response to that, Treated "Dismissive". His complaint fell on deaf ears so that it did not receive any treatment or attention. The two investigators did not show empathy for the defendant's condition. The interrogator also referred to the defendant's right to remain silent and the fact that the defendant was acting in accordance with the recommendation of his lawyer, Talk, The researcher's approach, will not lead to the lawyer sitting in the defendant's place in prison, and the interrogator even addressed the defendant with insulting expressions, Such as; A criminal and a garbage boy.
- In the testimony of Investigator G'Steam in front of us, Apart from the fact that he was not authorized to serve as a youth researcher (See - His testimony p.' 56 For the record, Row 17), As it emerges from his answers, He did not see anything wrong with his conduct, As detailed above. According to his approach, There were cases in the interrogation where the defendant behaved badly and the interrogation with him was conducted as the defendant himself led it.
According to the researcher, When he told the defendant that he "Criminal" and"Garbage Boy", It was not due to the defendant's silence, When he said: "...There were cases in the investigations that he was involved in the matter of cigarettes, Now give me the cigarette, Now I want my cigarette, I'm not that, There was one case where he was taken out somewhere in the office, to the bathroom or something like that and refused to come back, And he held the door, As if it was the conduct of a criminal" (pp' 62 For the record, Lines 9 -13).