A: A. I didn't get in between the lawyer and the suspect, between the lawyer and the client, OK, he maintained his right to remain silent, yes, throughout the interrogation (the defendant) maintained his right to remain silent, what he was told here, yes, it was in an attempt to help him.
Q: To help him?
A: To help him, only to help him, because if during the entire interrogation he maintains his right to remain silent and he comes to court with a suppressed version, yes, and does not speak, only in court he will not have time to come and say.
The Honorable Judge Hellman-Neusbaum: Sir, whoever is responsible for advising the defendant or the suspect what.
The witness, Mr. Huli: That's the lawyer.
The Honorable Judge Hellman-Neusbaum: That's the lawyer.
The witness, Mr. Huli: Right, right, what was said here again is not, God forbid, in order to harm or interfere with this matter of or harm (the defendant's) lawyer, that's not what we're going to do, it's done to help him, we just wanted (the defendant) to give us a version during the interrogation and he maintained his right to remain silent, that's all."
(p. 52 of the transcript, line 5 onwards).
- However, at the end of the day, the defendant did not abandon his right to remain silent, so that the attempts of some of the interrogators to bring the defendant to a situation of giving a version, as explained above, were unsuccessful. At the same time, this is the place to reiterate that police investigators must be careful not to cross the thin line into the area reserved for the relationship between the defendant and the defense attorney; A line that in my opinion was crossed in the framework of the investigation here, as I will discuss later as well.
An Overview of the Variety of Statements and Investigative Actions of the Defendant in the Police
- As I noted above, while the defendant maintained his right to remain silent, he gave a version regarding a few details that are not located in the heart of the dispute. At the same time, it is important to note that the lion's share of the details that the defendant referred to in his statements to the police turned out to be incorrect. These details are inconsistent with other findings. In this context, I will note that in order to remove the chaff from the bar, there is no choice but to refer in detail to the variety of statements made by the defendant (which came after the first act of dubbing);
First interrogation of the defendant; Dated 28 February 2016 at 17:30. As part of this interrogation, the defendant maintained his right to remain silent and claimed that he was innocent. During the interrogation, the interrogator Eli Ben Lulu took the defendant for a walk in the yard for further interrogation. The Second Investigation. In this interrogation as well, the defendant maintained his right to remain silent when, alongside his silence, when asked where he was on the night of the murder, he replied that he was in the house and did not leave it during all hours of the night until the morning hours (P/110, p. 11, line 23 onwards). As I noted above, this claim of the defendant that he was at home at night is incorrect since, based on the evidence material, as detailed above, on the night of the murder, the investigators arrived at the home of the defendant's mother, who, as stated, searched for the defendant in a panic, noting that he was not at home. The investigators themselves were also present to know that the defendant was not at home at that moment.