Interrogee, S.: That's right, right.
Researcher, D. Sickness: "Because I was there." the defendant typed in the interrogation. And then he asked you, you said it in your own words. Q.. You saw, heard, attacked him, attacked him. They stabbed him
Interrogee, S.: That's right, right.
Researcher, D. Sickness: Right?
Interrogee, S.: True, true.
Researcher, D. Sickness: Beauty
Interrogee, S.: He told me yes, you heard that they attacked, they attacked the person, I told him...
Researcher D. Sickness: They stabbed him, he also said.
Interrogee, S.: They attacked, they stabbed me, I don't remember exactly, he said something like that, something. Attack, through something of this kind.
Researcher D. Sickness: Okay, "He told me."
Interrogee, S.: True
Researcher D. Sickness: Didn't you say that?
Interrogee, S.: That's right, right.
Researcher D. Sickness: "You heard that they attacked the person and stabbed him.." So what did you answer him?"
It should be noted that in the course of this interrogation, witness S. repeated the main points, as he had previously stated them regarding the night of the murder. At the beginning of the message, he wanted to state that he was in pain, that he had platinums in his face and legs, and that he was willing to help investigators with anything they needed. Indeed, in this interrogation, the witness gave details about the night of the murder, when, according to him, on that day, towards evening, he finished his day of work installing cameras and arrived at his home, accompanied by the defendant who worked with him, entered the house, put down the tools and equipment, and after a while, the defendant left S.'s house to his own home. At about 10:00 P.M., the defendant called the witness and told him to go out to the end of the neighborhood to smoke a cigarette together. Accordingly, they sat and talked to each other, and in the end, the defendant told the witness that he had to go get the bicycle that his uncle had. Afterwards, everyone went on their own way. The witness added that about 40 minutes later, he left his house to smoke a cigarette and then he noticed a crowd of people. After advancing towards them, he saw a bicycle lying on the road and a man surrounded by people. According to the witness, he later returned to his home because he did not want to be involved in any way in the event that was there. The witness went on to say that between 11:30 P.M. and 12:00 A.M., he received a phone call from the defendant who asked him if he had heard about the incident that took place in the neighborhood, and then the witness replied that he had not only heard but also seen. It should be emphasized that, according to the witness, the defendant said that they attacked the man, stabbed him (see P/214, p. 2, line 49). A few minutes later, the defendant sent the witness two messages, the first of which he wrote "That I will come" and then in the second message he wrote "Stair dungeon" (as it appears to have died/214).
- It is precisely in the context of S.'s long statements to the police, that he gave things and the opposite, and it is evident that a thick fog surrounded the witness's statements, when he referred to the order of events and events on the night of the murder and/or the issue of whether the defendant had called him or whether they had met, and what came before what. It is evident that the witness contradicted himself more than once. It should be remembered that S. was interrogated by the police more than a month after the day of the murder, but it is reasonable to assume that he did not remember the exact sequence of events. Moreover, I did not lose sight of the witness's many complaints throughout his interrogation with the police about body pain, about the platinum in his head, and that he suffers from memory problems. Thus, for example, in the framework of P/211 (p. 28, lines 4-6), S. said: "Dude, I'm not lying to you, I just have very severe memory problems, it's also something medical, I really don't remember brother, ....".
- Investigator Huli took part in the interrogation of witness S. The witness S. complained of headaches and noted that he had been in a car accident and that he had platinum in his head and memory problems. The interrogator Huli said that he had not seen any medical documents. At the same time, he added that the investigation team is aware of the disability of each interrogee and that it can be assumed that if the witness asked for a pain pill, his request was given to him (p. 35, lines 8-15). Investigator Huli was asked about the witness's interrogation process, the duration of the interrogation, the witness's medical condition, and the treatment he received from police officials. Investigator Huli confirmed that S. at a certain point said in this language; "What do you want me to tell you, I'll tell you...". Huli was asked how this statement affected him, and he replied that it did not affect him at all (p. 35 of the transcript).
Later, in the cross-examination of Investigator Huli, he was again confronted with the words of Witness S. in his interrogation with the police, when he stated that he did not know anything and had not seen anything. The learned defense attorney turned to the interrogator and asked him, among other things, as follows: "... I don't feel like living, you're putting me in a place I'm not connected to, if I had even a drop of information I'd give you, now, he's telling you the interrogee that you know he has medical problems like you said earlier, that you see that his condition is getting worse and worse during the interrogation, telling you that he wants to die, OK, what did you do with it?? (p. 36 of the transcript, line 20 to p. 37, line 3). Referring to the witness's words, the investigator said in this way: "".... I can tell you that as someone who interrogated S., yes, he is quite a manipulator, yes, quite a player, who changed all kinds of behaviors during the interrogation and suddenly he decides to cry, and suddenly he laughs and goes back to the detention cell so everything is fine, that was my impression of that suspect anyway " (p. 37, lines 6-11).
- Needless to say, two of the interrogators who participated in taking the statements of witness S., interrogator Suleiman Sa'id and interrogator David Huli, were summoned to testify against him; This followed the testimony of S. From their testimonies, from the course of the proceedings as it emerges from the transcripts and recordings, it can indeed be concluded that the interrogators treated the witness appropriately (while ignoring the witness's complaints regarding his medical condition and the claim that he was exhausted). At the same time, the impression and feeling was created that they had interrogated the witness intensively. Yes, it is not possible to ignore the content of the witness's statements, his initial version, and the development that occurred in his version and its timing, as can be learned from the variety of his statements (see – some of the relevant quotes in the witness's statements above).
- There is no choice but to refer to the impression of the credibility of the testimony of witness S. in this context before us. I was not impressed by the refutation and/or lack of credibility that adhered to the testimony of the witness before us. Therefore, I do not find that this testimony should be rejected as unreliable. Given the above, I did not find it appropriate to prefer the statements of the witness (and/or some of them) to the police over his testimony before us. It is doubtful in my opinion whether the word "stabbed" was brought up by the defendant on the night of the murder. It should be emphasized that this conclusion, both when I determined that there was no reason to prefer the witness's statement to his testimony in court, and my conclusion with regard to not saying the word "stabbed" from the defendant's mouth, came, inter alia, against the background of the development that took place in the versions of witness S. in the police (when at first he did not mention at all that the defendant had approached him and said the word "stabbed") and given the direct impression of the credibility of the witnesses, As they testified before us, including witness S.'s claims regarding the pressure and methods of interrogation during his interrogation, up to the stage when he gave his version that the accuser is trying to hold onto.
Further, in the framework of Exhibit 9 (a memorandum prepared by Interrogator 'Amid Salameh dated 21 February 2016), Interrogator Salameh stated that following the action report of Officer Ali Klil (i.e., Exhibit A/1), he (i.e., Interrogator Salameh) spoke with Israel Madar and asked him about the incident that had taken place at night, and he stated that after returning home, after midnight, he noticed the police nearby. Yes, when he entered the house, he met his brother Yosef, who was already there. Yosef told him that he had heard from young men that the wounded young man had been attacked. Later, the interrogator contacted Yosef Madar by phone and asked him about the incident that had taken place that night, and the latter told him, among other things, that while he was standing there, he heard from young men, some of whom were talking on the phone and some of whom were talking to each other, that the wounded man had been attacked. Yes, he didn't hear who the attackers were.