When the defendant was asked how they came to him about a month after the incident, he replied that he did not know, Turn to him and anoint him like this.: "A month has passed ... Yes, how did they get to you after a month, I didn't understand, Listen or you'll start talking or you don't know what, I don't understand your story, I still can't digest it in my throat, Listen, I don't like sluts...." (Name, pp' 13, Lines 19-16). Lasri also reacted very forcefully, sharp, Predatory and demanding, and this is what he said: "You're here, you'll talk like a man, and you'll talk, brother, whatever he asks you, you'll answer... Because your story and voila, we'll see what it is from the ass, a human being says you're talking about murder, you're coming, you're telling me about drugs., You're in trouble with yourself?" (Name, pp' 13, Lines 26-22) And later on., "After that you talk like some maniac they say that... What does it mean that.. Who are you, who are you to say, they say that..." (Name, pp' 13, Lines 29-28).
Later, Vanunu told the defendant: "Let me explain it to you differently okay? May it be ... I'm interested in the little egg here, what are you detained for?? I'm more interested in who the person sitting here with me is. .. Now we understand each other" (Name, pp' 13 Lines 30 -33). And later on the same page, Lines 37 Up to 39 This is how the informant's words were expressed: "Now I'm asking you again this time, You will explain it to me in the best way possible so that I understand and that I will be calm at night okay? So that we can both be calm at night ...".
- From this stage onwards, You can see the turnaround that took place during the dubbing. Our Seeing Eyes, The defendant began to cooperate and give a version of his involvement in the murder; Then, The informants also began to behave differently, The high tone of speech faded, It should be emphasized, Because the defendant's own tone of speech also changed, and there were times when he spoke in a whisper.
The questioner will ask, What can be deduced from the conduct of the informants and the course of dubbing, As detailed above? It is not for nothing that I have prefaced and detailed, In the framework of the previous chapters, The content of the informants' words. Even though they played the role of criminals, Is it, Still, No other path could have been taken that was less predatory, More threatening and demanding than the actual informants?! Has there been no flaw in their method of operation? Did they act in a manner that trampled on the defendant's rights, including forcing him to abandon his right to remain silent and give a version in which he confessed to committing an offense??. In other words, Did the informants' conduct include the use of the invalid fathers or perhaps, We are interested in proper conduct?. Is under the guise of "The need to play a criminal character", The informants could have used predatory interrogation methods?.
- On my own, Severny, Against the background of all of the above, that the defendant's rights to a fair trial have been severely violated in light of the conduct of the informants, In view of the fact that no visual documentation was made of the dubbing process (When it comes to a minor), In light of the threatening language used by the informants, In view of the atmosphere that prevailed inside the dubbing booth, which was influenced by a variety of elements, including, The Fact, Because we are dealing with a minor with small body dimensions who stands alone in front of two informants who appeared to him to be two heavy criminals and adults with large body dimensions and who did not shy away from using predatory expressions (and even threaten) which include insults, Such as: ""; "Maniac" "Listen or you'll start talking or you don't know what"; "I don't like slutty people"; "Don't tell me, maybe..."; "Listen, listen, hello, look at me.... There are people sitting here, only men, you got it.? Understanding? Look at me when I talk to you, you got it.? And if you're not a man and you're a, and you get up from here, I'll kick you out of here."; "You're here, you'll talk like a man, and you'll talk, brother, whatever he asks you, you'll answer." And other sayings and expressions in this spirit. In this context, We must not turn a blind eye to the fact, Because, According to the evidence brought before us, From the moment the defendant entered the detention cell, He was in a state of exhaustion, After he did not meet his parents and expressed to his interrogators (Even in the early stages of the investigation, harsh words were hurled at him, As I noted earlier) The fact that he was hungry and weak. Similar, that the conduct of the informants led to a violation of the defendant's right to remain silent, Especially when the informants made it clear, Time after time, Because he will have to tell them what he is detained for and answer their questions, And this is as you can learn about it, Among other things, From the statements mentioned above. In this context, I will not be wrong if I refer once again to some of the statements of the informants, From which the degree of threat can be deduced (And not just implicitly) Use of violence; A threat that also violated the right to remain silent, As reflected in these statements: "Either you start talking or you don't know what" and - " Look at me when I talk to you, you got it.? And if you're not a man and you're a, and you get up from here, I'll kick you out of here." and "You'll talk like a man and you'll talk, brother, whatever he asks you, you'll answer". In addition to this, Weight must also be attributed to the fact, that the informants demonstrated their fear of the defendant who, Supposedly, He was portrayed by them as an informant and/or as someone who has committed, Supposedly, Sexual offense against a girl, Thus, that apart from the acts and predatory statements of the informants that the defendant/The minor was exposed to them, He understood very well, Because he will have to give a version, to confirm that he was put in the same cell with the informants, Since he committed an offense and not as an informant, As he did at the end of the day; Otherwise, Evil will happen to him. In this context, Do not exaggerate the words, On the severe consequences that can negatively affect the defendant, As a result of the location and placement of the latter in the slot she taught, Supposedly, For being a suspect, In the eyes of the informants, Committing an act of a sexual offense, Especially towards a girl or as an informant, The one who wishes to trap them.
- In the case that is at our doorstep, The reasonable conclusion that - "His Choice" of the defendant to speak and"Admit", It did not come of his own free will, Because many of the moves to which he was exposed were affected, which violated his right to remain silent and his right to a fair trial, including his right to refrain from self-incrimination. Our Seeing Eyes, The informants made use of clear statements concerning; Threat of use of violence, And there was even humiliation in them, Insult and disproportionate infringement of the defendant's rights to a fair and proper trial (Especially when you add to this all the characteristics of the specific investigative procedure, including, Lack of visual documentation, Absence of a meeting between the minor and his parents, The time of interrogation comes after a continuous and busy day of interrogations).
I am aware of the fact that the defendant himself used, Also, in somewhat blunt language and demonstrated proficiency in the field of drugs, He spoke in a language that is not foreign to the criminal world and even noted that he was involved in a case involving the drug industry in the past. Nevertheless, Even though he is a defendant/A boy who is not innocent and has some experience in the criminal field, Still, The defendant in question is a minor, All rights arising therefrom.
- It is not for nothing that I quoted in the previous chapters above, Parts of the content of the conversations between the defendant and the informants, As these came up during dubbing. Investigator G's statement'Hud (which taught that the defendant was suspected of murder) which came immediately after the defendant entered the cell (See - A/20 , Min 37:00), Illustrated well to the defendant, that he cannot present to his cellmates a representation that he, He is suspected of committing another offense, Except for the act of murder. Admittedly, The Defendant's Ability to Choose, If you keep silent, If anything, it wasn't completely blocked.. And the fact is that, Because he first asked to be left alone., However, without success. Evident, that the defendant tried to divert the suspicion concerning him to the suspicion rooted in the commission of a drug offense, But, Again without success. Afterwards, The defendant argued in the ears of the informants, Because he doesn't know anything about the fact of the murder, But, This time, too, without success. The informants did not give up and continued to ask questions to the defendant (As detailed using the language and phrases quoted in some of the above) until the defendant confessed to them.
Go out and learn, Had there been visual documentation, the court could have stood on its own, Up Closer and More Precisely, On the course of events and the conduct of the residents of the cell. Yes, It was possible to clearly learn about the physical closeness between the defendant and the informants as it actually was, About the atmosphere that prevailed inside the cell, About Body Movements, On markings exchanged between the parties, About tattoos that were on the body, about the details of clothing, as well as the difference in dimensions between the informants and the defendant, and even about the dynamics and conduct of the parties inside the cell, and more.