"Witness Abu Saleh: I never disregard the advice of a lawyer and I never tell the suspects anything about their lawyers, I am here trying to explain to him and bring him to a situation where he should talk and explain, even though his lawyer's advice is to maintain the right to remain silent, but usually the lawyers in the first few days don't know what's in the case and I try to explain to him why he should talk and explain himself.
Q: That is, at this point in time at the beginning of the investigation, you put yourself as [the defendant's] counselor, because his lawyer doesn't know what's in the file, and then you think it's better for (the defendant) not to maintain his right to remain silent.
A: It's not a counselor, it's an interrogation procedure that is customary for an interrogator who talks to an interrogee and then tries to tell him things so that he understands that he, that he's already complicated in fact, and the right to remain silent is not something that will help him, that he should give a version, it's something that's acceptable in interrogation.
The Honorable Judge Hellman-Neusbaum: But did you understand that this advice was contrary to the advice of his lawyer?
The witness, Mr. Abu Salah: I didn't tell him that your lawyer's advice was not good, I kept mentioning that it was his right, but it was worthwhile."
During the interrogations, the interrogator, Eli Ben Lulu, was also angry that the defendant was maintaining his right to remain silent and accused him, more than once, of being a criminal and behaving like a criminal.
This was also the case with Investigator Huli, when during the investigative activities in which he took part, he was accused of trying to interfere in the relationship between the defendant and the defense attorney, and his answer was that he wanted to get a version. Below I will bring some of the witness's answers to the questions addressed to him during his interrogation:
"Q: OK, first we talked about (the accused's) right to remain silent, but here I am trying to understand two statements of yours, look, page 60, after he maintains his right to remain silent and you explain to him that it is not okay to maintain the right to remain silent, you tell him so, you think the moment is your problem, you think the moment, you don't think about the future, you don't think ahead, You think about what will happen now, so here I won't talk now, but you don't think about what will happen in a while, in a day, in two days, in a month, in two months, you don't think, you were like, you would think like a child now this is your problem, get out of this head, get out of this bubble, get out of the bubble you are in, okay, your lawyer told you in the consultation to maintain your right to remain silent, What will happen? Don't answer me for a moment because I continue, OK, and then on page 70 you tell him in line 34, 35, yes, you tell him that he behaves like the head of a crime gang because he protects the right to remain silent and then you say to him I told you, so your lawyer's advice was to keep the right to remain silent, it's your right but you're just causing you damage, Just, we'll extend your detention, and we'll extend it for you and extend it for you and it won't end the way you think, if you're silent then it'll end, it won't end, on the contrary, he'll sell you what he wants, he's just advising you on the advice of your lawyer, I said, he's advising you, right? The person who will bear this punishment is not you, please explain to me what you tried to make (the defendant) understand by telling him, yes, that the person who will bear this punishment is him and not me who advised him to maintain the right to remain silent, why are you entering this place between the lawyer and the suspect? Explain it to me.