Afterwards, the defendant was asked about prepared details that he knew and even spoke about them to the informants, since the detail according to which the deceased was stabbed with a knife is a prepared detail as well with respect to the location of the stabbings. The defendant tried to provide answers to this by stating – "Of course, I confirm that I have read the article and read other articles" (P/101, p. 86, line 32). Later, on pp. 87-89, the defendant tried to explain to the interrogators, which he had deduced from the article, that these were stabbings with a knife (p. 88, line 4). The same applies to the location of the stabbings in the back, since he concluded that the deceased was surprised; Otherwise, he would have run away, and hence, the location of the stabbings is in the back (p. 89).
We will also ask whether his version that he knew that these were informants to whom he consciously chose to lie is correct, then why did he give them, among other things, correct details, such as; The fact that his father was abroad, his dispute with Y., the arson of the Silverado and other details. In this context, the defendant did not know how to provide logical explanations.
In addition, when the defendant was asked why during the conversation with the informants there were stages during which he spoke to the informants in a whisper, especially when he told them, as he claimed, false things and why he did not tell his interrogators that the informant had threatened him inside the cell, he chose to remain silent without providing satisfactory answers.
- The defendant was interrogated again, after the investigation of the slapping, His Eleventh Investigation Dated March 16, 2016; In the framework of it, he stated as follows: "I am innocent. I knew that the man was stabbed in the back because my mother worked in ... And he talked about it and I heard her tell my father. On the first day I was arrested and arrived at the Hadera police station, the informant who introduced himself as Nissim and Anunu threatened me, and I was afraid of him and told him lies. I knew that a man's car had been burned in Afula, and I chose to tell him that too. On the advice of my lawyer from now on, I will maintain my right to remain silent" (P/106, p. 4, lines 8-14).
- Thus, it can be said (with regard to the defendant's statements) that we are concerned with long and exhausting interrogations. During these interrogation activities, a number of investigators took part, and during the interrogation an investigator with a certification as a youth investigator was also present. The interrogations are all recorded. But, visual documentation, there is none. During all the interrogations, as stated above, the defendant maintained his right to remain silent for the most part. At the same time, it should be noted that the interrogators' impression of the defendant's attitude towards them, as their statements indicate that he behaved with contempt, put his feet on the table, asked to smoke a large number of times, set conditions for them, and more.
The Defendant's Attitude to the Investigators
- This is what Investigator Huli testified in the course of his main interrogation, regarding the defendant's attitude toward the interrogation:
"OK, indeed these are the interrogations in which I participated, I was part of the interrogation team in the aforementioned interrogations, in front of us sat the defendant who showed composure from time to time as well as indifference, lack of care, maintained his right not to answer, maintained his right to remain silent in these interrogations, but the impression we got from that defendant is really disrespectful, he behaved indifferently, he received his full rights and even beyond that, We knew he was a minor, we allowed him to do things in the interrogation room that we don't let every suspect in this case, whether it was smoking in the interrogation room, during the interrogation, if it was drinking coffee he received, food he got all the time, breaks whenever he wanted, despite all this I personally and my colleagues in the interrogation team felt the contempt of that defendant, if we didn't allow him to smoke then he decided that he was not cooperating, From time to time he told us what are these questions that you ask me, I am not willing to answer such questions, he tried to conduct the interrogation for us himself, other things that did not suit him he could also sit and lower his head even though we ask him, ... Sit down, sit in front of us properly, explain to us, elaborate on us, he decided he didn't answer so he didn't answer, what he wanted he answered what he didn't want he didn't answer, once we didn't allow him to smoke so he decided that from now on I don't answer, do what you want, you don't let me smoke, you don't give me coffee, As far as I'm concerned, you can ask what you want, I'm not willing to answer at all, behavior that in my opinion is inappropriate behavior, disrespectful behavior, that's the impression I got anyway together with my fellow investigators."