Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 35106-11-21 State of Israel v. Neta Cuneo - part 2

In these circumstances, and when it was not even claimed before me that what the defendant said in her statements was not true, it is clear that there is no room for a petty trial.  However, it is clear that this does not prevent the defendant from raising the arguments that her counsel argued in the aforementioned protocol both against the conduct of the investigating unit and against the conduct of the prosecuting authorities, but only within the appropriate legal framework of protection from justice (in the transcript, p.  11, line 2 onwards).

20. It is therefore appropriate to emphasize, already at this stage, that despite the general denial of the facts of the indictment, the comprehensive examinations of the witnesses, and the harsh and far-reaching allegations raised by the defense against the conduct of the DIP, on the factual level it became clear - including in the framework of the defendant's testimony in court - that with regard to a significant part of the facts alleged in the indictment, the dispute between the parties is not great. This is because, at the end of the day, the defendant did not deny the entrances and checks she conducted in the police systems, as well as most of the information provided in the indictment, while repeatedly claiming that these were acts committed in the course of fulfilling her duties.
21. With regard to the factual dispute, it should be noted here further that there was no dispute before me - and in fact these are well-known matters - that all the entrances to the main computerized systems of the police are documented as they are in these systems. Therefore, as a rule, it is possible to check in these systems who entered the information system, what information they checked, and when they did so.  In addition, the defendant's correspondence and communications via cell phones, including the transmission of photographs and recorded conversations (recorded by the defendant herself), were also seized during the interrogation.  In this context, the defense argued that there were serious violations of the defendant's privacy and that illegal searches were conducted, in deviation from the judicial orders that were issued - arguments that we will address later - but this shows that a significant part of the evidentiary foundation laid before me is based on objective, digital-forensic evidence, the content of which does not depend on the testimony of one witness or another or his reliability.
22. The prosecution case - DIP investigators:
23. As part of its response to the indictment, the defense announced that it was required to provide all the prosecution's witnesses; Indeed, most of them testified before me during the course of the trial. However, the defendant's counsel agreed to the submission of the exhibits file prepared by the plaintiff, subject to the cross-examination of the witnesses, in such a way that some of the witnesses testified before me only in cross-examination (since their statements were submitted, as part of the prosecution's exhibits file, instead of their main interrogation).  We will begin the discussion of the testimonies of the witnesses with the investigators of the prosecutions by virtue of various laws from the Tel Aviv Police, who investigated the defendant's case and to which the main arguments of the defense were based.

• Investigator of lawsuits by virtue of various laws, Ofer Babitsky:

23. The investigator in Babitsky was, during the relevant period, the director of investigations in the branch of the Prosecutions by virtue of various laws in Tel Aviv. In his main interrogation, the investigator described the development of the investigation in the case, which, according to him, went through several incarnations.  The investigation began with a report that Babitsky received from a VIP officer in Ayalon (Deputy Superintendent Kobi Abutbul), who told him that as part of an affair that was being conducted in the area - i.e., the investigation of the riots - an action report was found by a traffic policeman, who happened to detain one of those involved, who noted that he had been approached by a policewoman (who is the accused) and tried to dissuade him from registering a report (see the transcript, p.  66, line 1 onwards).
24. Investigator Babitsky described that after the opening of an investigation from prosecutors under various laws as aforesaid (at that stage only in the matter of the incident of the report), a lawyer named Adi Carmeli filed a letter of complaint, on April 22, 2021, in which he requested that the defendant be interrogated on suspicion of disrupting the investigation of Tal Mizrahi. This was on the grounds that after Tal's arrest by the Crimes Division in the Ayalon region, the defendant approached the police with requests for his release (the letter was submitted as part of the defense's exhibits file and was marked N/16).  Investigator Babitsky noted, in his main testimony before me, that Attorney Carmeli represented the ex-wife (Eran) at the time in the context of the latter's interrogation at the DIP.  Therefore, the interrogator in Babitsky believed that the letter was connected to the murky relationship between the defendant and the ex-wife, and immediately sought to verify with S.C.  Abutbul that the ex-wife was not aware of the interrogation against the defendant (see the transcript, p.  66, line 9 ff.).
25. In the memo, which the interrogator wrote in Bibitsky on the same day (April 22, 2021), he noted that in a conversation he had with Deputy Superintendent Abutbul, he told him that the ex-wife was excluded from the suspicions regarding the defendant. Regarding the claims raised in Attorney Carmeli' s letter, Deputy Superintendent Abutbul also told the investigator that contrary to what was claimed in the letter, in the investigation in the Ayalon area "there was no indication of any connection between Neta and Tal Mizrahi or any of the police officers who carried out his arrest or dealt with his case" (see the interrogator's memo, P/64, as well as in the email).  of Sgt.  Abutbul, P/65).
26. Investigator Babitsky further testified that in the investigation of the suspicion of breach of trust by the defendant, at the time, as stated only in the matter of the incident of the report, it was necessary to collect Yossi's version. However, Yossi was not located and only on 01.08.21 did Levitzky learn that he had been arrested by YLP Kedem.  The interrogator in Betziki therefore contacted the investigation officer there, in order to coordinate a date for Yossi's interrogation, but following this request, the unit commander contacted him.  The commander asked him why they were required to interrogate Yossi and added that they suspected that their interrogation had been leaked to the arrested suspects - because the suspects had stated at the time of their arrest that they had known about the interrogation for several weeks - and therefore asked to examine the possibility that the defendant was looking for information about the victims in the arms trafficking case they were investigating (in the transcript, p.  66, line 28 ff.).
27. The investigator in Babitsky conducted such an examination, but did not find that the defendant had conducted an examination regarding those victims. However:

We found that the policewoman (the defendant) examined all four suspects arrested in the same case a number of times, using various police information systems.  It actually opened a new window to the investigation into that improper relationship that we suspected in the first place, it opened up to dimensions that we were not exposed to at the time.  At this stage, suspicion arose of her involvement in an arms trafficking case (see the transcript, p.  67, line 9 onwards, as well as in Memorandum P/23 and its appendices).

28. The prosecutor asked the investigator to refer to what was stated in his memorandum P/24, which details the results of the listening to a recorded conversation dated July 19, 2021 between the defendant and her book, Daniel Shaul, which was downloaded from the defendant's TV. The interrogator clarified that this was a conversation relevant to the interrogation, as it showed the extent of the defendant's knowledge of Yossi's activity; As he put it: "In the conversation, Netta clearly stated that the same Yossi Shmuel is a criminal, that he is indeed a declared criminal, and that he should be arrested at any moment.  She describes that he is complicated and has no shortage of things that he deals with.  She also says that her father knows about the same Yossi and that he tells her to be careful" (in the transcript, p.  68, line 3 ff.).
29. Investigator Babitsky also detailed the permissions that the defendant had at the time in the various police information systems. As the interrogator explained - even at the beginning of his cross-examination - the authorizations included access to the PLA (movement) system and the human system (see the transcript, p.  68, line 15 onwards, as well as the details of the authorizations in Memorandum P/22).  It should be clarified that the systems, in which the defendant had authorization, do not allow access to investigative materials in criminal cases that are not traffic cases.  However, the Adam system includes the possibility of viewing extensive demographic and police data, including lists of open criminal investigation files and material data about them, including the offenses that are the subject of suspicion, the status of the investigation, and the identity of the investigative unit.
30. In the cross-examination, the interrogator confirmed that at the time he had investigated the case of the ex-wife, in which the defendant served as a prosecution witness (in the transcript, p. 68, line 33 ff.).  However, the investigator rejected the defense attorney's argument that in light of this fact, he should have avoided investigating the defendant's case, and claimed that there was no connection between the two things.  The investigator explained that the information provided by the Ayalon VIP officer regarding the suspect's suspicion of interference in the work of another police officer for the benefit of a property offender, i.e., the incident of the report, was in itself sufficient to open a DIP investigation, with the additional suspicions only arising later (in the transcript, p.  69, line 31 ff.).  The defense attorney reiterated that the additional suspicions arose in the wake of Adv. Carmeli' s letter, which he claimed was written on behalf of the ex-wife, but Babitsky clarified that this was not written in the letter and in any event, the suspicion raised in the letter was actually denied, as stated in his aforementioned memorandum P/64.
31. The defense attorney hurled serious accusations against the interrogator Babitsky of extraneous considerations and an alleged connection with the ex-wife, but the interrogator protested the raising of these claims, rejecting them and saying that he was a "flower crow" (in the transcript, p. 73, line 32).  The defense attorney also elaborated on the questions as to why the interrogator in Babitsky thought Yossi was a criminal and said this to the defendant, and the interrogator explained that he was a man who had been arrested on suspicion.  It should be noted that the reference here was to an excerpt from the defendant's first interrogation, which the interrogator entered in Bibitsky (P/1, line 290 onwards), in which the defendant herself describes Yossi as "the juice of the garbage" and states that he was arrested (ibid., line 294 and line 298).
32. The defense attorney returned to listen to the recording of the conversation between the defendant and Daniel Shaul, which he claimed was done illegally due to invasion of privacy, but the investigator clarified that the defendant's phone was disassembled in accordance with the court's orders (in the transcript, pp. 77 and 82, as well as in his aforementioned remarks in the main interrogation).  The defense attorney did not cool down, and later claimed that the conversation was directed at the defendant only because it included intimate details and with the aim of pressuring her.  The interrogator replied to the defense attorney that he was making allegations in the air, without any factual basis, and concretely reiterated his claim that this was a conversation relevant to the investigation, since it contained "evidence that greatly strengthens Netta's knowledge of Yossi's criminal past and the future that is expected to happen to him following an ongoing police investigation" (in the transcript, p.  83, line 1 ff.).
33. Later in the cross-examination, the defense attorney again accused the interrogator of Babitsky of blatant allegations, according to which he acted in an improper and illegal manner and also exerted improper pressure on the defendant during her interrogations, but the interrogator denied and rejected these claims categorically (in the transcript, p. 78 ff.).  The investigator explained, inter alia, that the investigation into the defendant's case began with a lighter suspicion, when the suspicion of involvement in the arms trafficking case arose following a request from the Attorney General's Office; And this is the suspicion that subsequently led to the defendant's arrest.  Since the suspicion arose, there was no improper pressure on the defendant when she received her statement A/1B, in which the interrogator was partially present (in the transcript, p.  78, line 32 ff.).  It should be noted that in the same interrogation, P/1B, when the more serious suspicions were leveled against the defendant (starting from line 73), she chose to remain silent.

• Omer Kalinsky, an investigator of lawsuits under various laws:

34. Investigator Kalinsky was the investigator in charge of the investigation file, and by virtue of this position he carried out many investigative actions, including the submission of most of the requests for judicial orders (P/8 to P/12) and the collection of six statements of the defendant (P/1 to P/1E). The investigator said that "this case began as a simple case of a breach of trust by a policewoman who intervenes in a report in favor of a friend...  Now, that's where this case began.  I don't remember saying the dates, it was around the end of April 21" (in the transcript, p.  37, line 13 onwards).
35. In his main testimony, Investigator Kalinsky described the development of the investigation, which began, as stated, regarding the incident of the report (the subject of the fifth indictment), and detailed the orders for the media studies and the penetration of the Teles that were received (in the transcript, pp. 37-40).  Investigator Kalinsky clarified that in view of the evidence that was collected, and the additional suspicions that arose, it was necessary to expand the orders in terms of the dates as well (see also in his memorandum P/66).  Therefore, the investigator made appropriate requests to the court and acted in accordance with the orders that were given.  As noted, as part of the investigation, it was necessary to collect a statement from Yossi and Investigator Kalinsky tried to locate him, without success (in the transcript, p.  41, line 29 ff.).  The investigator therefore turned to the Ayalon detective, but Yossi was not located and there was even suspicion that he had escaped from the detectives who tried to locate him (ibid., line 21 onwards.  See also Memorandum P/69 and its appendices).
36. In addition, searches conducted on the defendant's Teles found a great deal of information. Among other things, photos of the defendant with Yossi were found, a photocopy of the traffic report given to Yossi, as well as a photocopy of the court's decision in the process of arresting Tal Mizrahi as part of the investigation into the explosions.  Yossi's ID number and a variety of photographs relating to his files were also found, a declaration of his arrest and his being a "Budkai", as well as photocopies of reports and the scene of the accident in which Yossi and Tal were involved.  In addition, a photocopy of a traffic indictment filed against the barber Daniel Shaul was found, as well as photocopies of weapons licenses and demographic information about Yehezkel (from the arms license incident, the subject of the fourth indictment.  See the full details in memoranda P/17 and P/18 and their appendices).  Through Investigator Kalinsky, the memorandum P/72 was also submitted, which documents the defendant's failed attempt to intervene during the interrogation of Policewoman Lynn Tarnau.
37. As part of the cross-examination, the defense attorney elaborated on various questions about Adv. Carmeli's letter (P/16). Investigator Kalinsky confirmed that he was familiar with the letter and also confirmed that he had heard that there had been investigations into the defendant and the ex-wife, but noted that he did not know the ex-wife and was not involved in his investigations.  The defense attorney reiterated that the entire investigation actually began because of this letter, but the interrogator explained that due to significant inaccuracies in the letter, he did not give it weight, but rather relied, in opening the investigation into the incident of the report, on the documents of Sgt.  Kadosh (in the transcript, p.  45, line 27 onwards, as well as on the following pages).  See also the words of the investigator in the re-examination, at p.  63, line 8 onwards).
38. Against the background of the defendant's claims that her actions were carried out in the framework of her duties, the defense attorney asked Investigator Kalinsky why he did not attach to the interrogation materials a memorandum stating that the defendant's activities deviated from instructions or managers, and why the defendant's commander did not contact him. Investigator Kalinsky explained: "Every time you enter a police computer, a slide appears with a list of instructions, including instructions that Netta has now violated in these suspicions and charges" (in the transcript, p.  50, line 28 ff.).  The investigator was also interrogated, at length, regarding the manner in which the warrants were issued in this case and explained his conduct, when in response to the defense attorney's complaints about the invasion of privacy, the investigator emphasized that all the searches were conducted in accordance with the judicial orders that were issued (ibid., p.  57, line 3).
39. The defense attorney repeatedly accused investigator Kalinsky of being the person behind the defendant's interrogation and in this context also referred to an action report regarding a complaint filed by the ex-wife against the defendant on June 15, 2021. In this complaint, the ex-husband claimed that his six-year-old son called him and asked him to take him, and said that there was a man named Yossi in the house and that there was shouting (P/23).  Investigator Kalinsky explained that the action report regarding this complaint was relevant to the investigation at the outset, in order to understand the existence of a relationship between the defendant and Yossi, but added that this was not the essence of the investigation, and that this was evidence that the requests for orders were approved by several judges (in the transcript, p.  53, line 16 ff.).  The investigator went on to explain that the defense attorney involved in his questions the two investigations that were conducted in the case of Yossi and his accomplices, one in the Ayalon area (on suspicion of riots) and the other in the Kedem Police Department (on suspicion of arms trafficking) (ibid., p.  54, line 31).
40. The defense attorney complained in particular about the penetration and listening to a certain conversation that took place between the defendant and her father. Investigator Kalinsky confirmed that this was a conversation that as a father was unpleasant to listen to, but added that its relevance stemmed from the fact that the defendant "is talking about a loved one (Maimoni - S.a), who is a criminal, and in conclusion her father said: 'More criminals'" (in the transcript, p.  57, line 21).  The interrogator reiterated that all the intrusions were carried out in accordance with orders, while at the beginning of his cross-examination he further clarified that in this interrogation no wiretapping orders were requested at all (ibid., p.  46, line 26 ff.).  It should be noted here that listening to conversations that were recorded and stored on the Tals by the defendant does indeed require a search warrant (intrusion), but this is in contrast to a search warrant for wiretapping (see also ibid., p.  58).  The investigator went on to add that in any case, the materials were only exposed to a small investigative team, so that there was no violation of privacy beyond what was required (ibid., p.  59, line 23 ff.).

• An investigator of lawsuits under various laws, Ofer will understand:

41. Investigator Yavin carried out a number of investigative actions in the case, including analyzing the information regarding the tests conducted by the defendant in the police information systems regarding the investigation files in which Yossi and his accomplices were involved. The investigator found that the defendant had viewed a number of PLA files that were attached to the investigation of the YLP Kedem regarding weapons offenses, including the file mentioned in the facts of the first indictment - which dealt with suspicion of offenses of illegal acquisition or possession of weapons (see memorandum P/28, mainly in section 4).  The investigator also found that among the policemen, only one of the defendant's acquaintances, Lynn Tarno, entered the PLA file that was attached to the investigation of YLP Kedem (see his memoranda P/29 and P/30).
42. In the cross-examination, the defense attorney accused the interrogator of Yavin that he had no basis for interrogating Lin with a warning and that he had done so only for the purposes of exerting pressure (as part of the collection of Lin's statement, P/83). The investigator rejected the allegations and clarified that he had a positive indication that Lin had entered the PLA file, which was relevant to one of the suspects in the YLP Kedem interrogation, and in these circumstances the warning was even required to preserve Lin's rights (in the transcript, p.  15, line 19 onwards).  The interrogator later confirmed that the defendant had given an explanation that could explain Lin's innocent entry into the aforementioned file, but emphasized that this was only later in the matter, two days after he interrogated Lin (ibid., p.  16, line 14.  See also Memorandum P/52).
43. The defense attorney elaborated on questions about Lin's interrogation, but nothing relevant to our case arose in this context, when the case against her was closed due to lack of guilt (in the transcript, p. 24, line 6 ff.).  The defense attorney reiterated that the interrogation was a sensational fishing expedition and nothing more, but interrogator Yavin rejected the claims, as well as the claims that unnecessary violations were made of the privacy of the interrogees.  The defense attorney also raised questions regarding the interrogation of Sapir, another friend of the defendant who was interrogated by Investigator Yavin (in an open statement), but here too no relevant matters came up.
44. The defense attorney also accused the investigator of Yavin that the defendant's actions were done by virtue of her role as a police officer and as a citizen of Yossi, although it should be noted that this is a normative question and not a question of eternity. In any event, the interrogator replied: "An examination that she performs at the request of another party of interpersonal matters is not carried out lawfully," and according to the defense attorney's claim that there is no problem with the transfer of information via WhatsApp, he added: "There is no reason why a police officer should take a screenshot of any police system and transmit it to a citizen via WhatsApp" (in the transcript, p.  29, line 20 ff.).  To repeated and similar questions, the witness elaborated and explained that "the suspicions against Netta did not relate to the nature of her action vis-à-vis an ordinary citizen, but to the actions she carried out while abusing her access to the information systems" (ibid., p.  30, line 29 ff.).

• Investigator of lawsuits under various laws Hadara Buchris-Wilk:

45. Investigator Wilk carried out a number of investigative actions in the case, some of which were technical in nature, and was interrogated in the context of the defense attorney's performance of these actions in a cross-examination. The defense attorney complained in particular that in the framework of the defendant's study report (N/27), investigator Wilk would briefly summarize the defendant's conversations with her mother and father.  Among other things, the defense attorney referred to a summary of the defendant's conversation with her father (P/27, paragraph 15), a conversation in which the father referred to the defendant's relationship with delinquent men, mentioning names, and even told her to go to therapy and stop it.  Investigator Wilk responded:

It was impossible not to listen to this conversation because the conversation involved things that are relevant to the investigation...  These things that were said were also said in reference to those criminal men, to those people who were concerned about the policewoman's relations with them and about the provision of information that they were not allowed to receive, which was about personal relationships.  The policewoman's alleged contact with traffic police was also for those criminal elements.  So things were relevant at that time (in the transcript, p.  93, line 22 onwards).

46. The defense attorney referred the interrogator to the defendant's statement - as part of the collection of the defendant's statement P/1B, in the part in which she was present - according to which "the interrogation material indicates that you took part in a transaction of arms trafficking," to which the defendant responded "maintaining the right to remain silent" (P/1B, lines 161-162). The defense attorney claimed that there was no basis in the investigative materials for these statements, and Investigator Wilk responded: "The whole subject of the investigation revolved around the fact that she had contact with elements that make weapons deals and that she assists them in obtaining police information.  These are things that came up" (in the transcript, p.  99, line 15 ff.).  Investigator Wilk also rejected the defense attorney's arguments that the interrogation method was improper and added and emphasized that the defendant did not confess, but rather maintained the right to remain silent, behavior that only increased the suspicion against her (ibid., p.  100, line 30 ff., p.  112, line 4 ff.).
47. The defense attorney went back to the TALS' review report and asked Investigator Wilk why she would shorten the defendant's conversation with a woman named Tami (N/27, paragraph 2), even though this name does not appear at all on the list of those involved in the interrogation. The interrogator replied that it didn't matter whether that name appeared or not, because "the conversation is relevant because Netta tells Tami after she leaves the interrogation the version she told the DIP, in her interrogation about the disruption.  This is after she was warned that she is not allowed to talk about the subject of the investigation" (in the transcript, p.  114, line 19 ff.).
48. The defense attorney again accused Willk of improperly shortening the defendant's conversations, which included intimate details about her life, and this time referred to the defendant's conversation with her bookkeeper, Daniel Shaul. Investigator Wilk clarified that this was a conversation relevant to the interrogation, since in the conversation (N/27, section 5) the defendant was talking to Daniel "about a dror who brought drugs and they were running drugs together, and he also called her because he was in the Ayalon area because he had reports, he asked if she was at work.  She talks to him about Yossi who was with her the day before" (in the transcript, p.  117, line 30 ff.).  The defense attorney criticized the fact that Investigator Wilk had taken a statement from Daniel Shaul (P/29) and even claimed that it was an abuse of his power, but the investigator replied that from the content of the conversation it was clear that the defendant was sharing details with Daniel and therefore it was necessary to collect his statement; and it was precisely the failure to do so that that was an investigative omission (in the transcript, p.  121, line 6 onwards).
49. The defense attorney also asked Investigator Wilk about a summary of the defendant's conversation with a woman named Liora, in which an intimate detail also appears (P/27, paragraph 22). Again, the interrogator explained that this was a conversation relevant to the interrogation, since the defendant "says that she deleted everything from the phone, again, something that is relevant to the disruption, they talk about the fact that someone must have scolded Neta, again, something that reinforces the fact that Netta did something wrong because otherwise why should she be scolded.  They kept her away [from] Yossi and Matal, so it lit a light bulb for her thatmaybe Tal was screaming at her, again, reinforcing the fact that she must have done something wrong with Tal, he was also in an accident..." (in the transcript, p.  125, line 26 ff.).
50. Investigator Wilk collected the two statements of Sgt. Natalie Levy (P/82 and P/82A), another friend of the defendant.  The defense attorney asked why the second notice of the above, which was taken close to the end of the collection of the first notice, was taken with a warning, and Investigator Wilk explained that it had been discovered that Natalie had conducted an examination of Yossi (see also P/75).  The defense attorney complained that Natalie gave various details in her statements about the nature of the defendant's relationship with Yossi.  The investigator replied that these were Natalie's words and that she could not dictate to the witness what to answer (in the transcript, p.  134, line 1 onwards), when her questions were pertinent and related to the offenses (ibid., p.  135, line 8 onwards).  The defense attorney also complained about the shortening of two conversations between the defendant and Natalie, which Natalie forwarded to the investigator (see the wiretapping report P/42).  Investigator Wilk explained that there were conversations relevant to the investigation, since "Netta told Natalie that she had discovered that Shaiand Si were arrested and everything related to her involvement with Yossi...  This is something that instilled familiarity and awareness of Yossi's situation and his criminal background" (in the transcript, p.  128, line 20 ff.).

• Investigator of lawsuits under various laws Lior Shishportis notes:

51. Investigator Notts also served as a skilled computer investigator at the DIP. In addition to collecting messages, she performed actions to unload the defendant's telecommunications (see Memorandum P/34) and examined, at the request of Investigator Kalinsky, the photographs sent by the defendant using her mobile phone (see Memorandum P/35 and its appendices, where the photographs found in the phone's sent folder are detailed, and also in the witness's main testimony in the transcript, p.  193, line 20 ff.).
52. In the cross-examination, Investigator Knotts was asked about the statement she received from Nava Malka (P/35), a policewoman who knew the defendant and was a member of a WhatsApp group of five girls, including the defendant. Nava stated that the defendant sent private information about herself in the aforementioned group, on her own initiative, including photos of Yossi (P/35, line 20 onwards).  The defense attorney also accused Investigator Notts of deviating from the permit given in the framework of Order P/10, but the interrogator rejected his arguments and also explained that later more expansive orders were issued (in the transcript, p.  194, line 31).
53. The defense attorney also accused Notts of unnecessarily violating the defendant's privacy and wondered why she did not interrupt Policewoman Aviva Goni - another friend of the defendant, from whom the investigator had taken a statement (P/36) - when she provided private information about the defendant's relationship with Yossi. The investigator replied that the defendant's relationship with Yossi interested her only in the context of the offenses committed (ibid., p.  196, line 26).  Later on, the interrogator emphasized that her questions were pertinent and open, and that intimate information did not interest her, but that it is not the role of an investigator to silence a witness (ibid., p.  198, line 8 ff.).  The defense attorney also asked Investigator Notts about the statement she had received from Yehezkel (the owner of the weapon from the firearms license incident - the notice was marked N/37) following the findings about the information about him being sent by the defendant to Yossi (see Bat/18, photographed A.K.  21), and he also asked about the examination of the cell phone of Omri Weil (who, as noted, was another suspect in the Yelp Kedem interrogation).

• Assessment Officer Adi Ben Shitrit:

54. Ben-Shitrit does not investigate lawsuits under various laws, but rather an evaluation officer in the Information Security Unit. However, as part of her role, she assists prosecutors under various laws in examining police officers' activity in police information systems; As she put it: "I am checking whether a policeman checked a particular citizen.  There is a system where I enter the identity card of the policeman and the number being examined, and this is actually the output that I transferred to the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws via email, and this is where my job ends" (in the transcript, p.  205, line 29 ff.).  As part of the investigation in this case, Ben Shitrit conducted a series of examinations in the defendant's case, at the request of the investigator in Bitzky, and forwarded to him the results of them, which were submitted to me as appendices to the investigator's memoranda.
55. In her main testimony in court, Ben-Shitrit explained how the outputs and the information contained therein should be read regarding the documentation of the actions carried out by a particular police officer in a particular information system (in the transcript, p. 206, line 10 onwards).  Among other things, Ben-Shitrit explained that in the act of "presenting PLA files", the inspecting policeman "sees all the files that the object he inspected is involved..  He sees literally everything, he sees the offenses that he is involved in the cases and the status of the cases.  and of course where the case was investigated" (ibid., line 17 onwards).
56. In the cross-examination, Ben-Shitrit reiterated that her role in this investigation was technical in nature and amounted to conducting checks on the police's information systems, at the request of the DIP, as part of investigative assistance. In response to the defense attorney's questions, Ben-Shitrit clarified that she would not assist police investigators, since her work arrangement is against lawsuits by virtue of various laws (in the transcript, pp.  210-211).  The defense attorney argued that the defendant was suspected of committing offenses against DIP investigators "personally," and asked whether prosecutions under various laws had mentioned this to her.  Ben-Shitrit responded: "  What I said, I get an ID card, check and check, I don't know what the offense is in the case, I'm not involved with a suspect, who is a victim.  I receive an identity card and this is where my job ends" (ibid., p.  211, line 7 ff.).
57. The defense attorney also questioned Ben Shitrit regarding her correspondence (by email) with the interrogator Babitsky, regarding his question about whether it is possible to obtain data regarding a policeman's entry into the weapons registers in the Adam system (P/26, P/74). Ben-Shitrit referred the question of the investigator to the relevant professional body, who replied that at that time no information was stored regarding weapons tests in a human system.  In light of this, the defense attorney asked Ben-Shitrit whether it was possible to conclude from the fact that the information regarding weapons tests was stored in the criminal system , and she said: "I don't know how to answer such a thing" (in the transcript, p.  214, line 29).

• The prosecution case - the testimonies of the policemen:
• Superintendent Nadav Kogan:

58. Superintendent Kogan was the commander of the YLP Kedem during the relevant period. As he explained in his main interrogation in court, the suspicion in the arms trafficking affair was a suspicion of defrauding innocent people who sold weapons on the Yad 2 website, while forging documents and impersonating lawyers.  When the investigation became public, the unit arrested three suspects - Yossi, Tal Mizrahi and Omri Weil - against whom an indictment and a request for detention were subsequently filed until the end of the legal proceedings (in the transcript, pp.  155-156).
59. Superintendent Kogan spoke with Tal Mizrahi on 04.08.21, during Tal's arrest, and he told him about his acquaintance with Yossi from his youth. Tal also said that he was "not worried." Superintendent Kogan asked Tal why, and he replied: "Just like you, we have intelligence for two months" (see Memorandum P/37).  In his main testimony, Superintendent Kogan added that questions had already arisen at the time of the suspects' arrest (on August 1, 2021), since one of the suspects asked, "If we are this special unit of the Jerusalem District, it raised questions since we are a unit from the Jerusalem District and we have no connection to them, they were ready for us to arrest them" (in the transcript, p.  156, line 9 onwards).
60. In his cross-examination, Superintendent Kogan confirmed that during the long undercover interrogation, the name of the defendant did not come up, a name he encountered only after the suspects were arrested and prosecutions under various laws entered the picture (in the transcript, p. 157, line 3).  Superintendent Kogan clarified that he had not interrogated the defendant and could not have interrogated her, since she was a police officer and therefore her interrogation was under the authority of the DIP.  Superintendent Kogan further clarified that he did not contact the DIP, but rather from prosecutions under various laws because one of the suspects who was arrested by him, i.e., Yossi, was needed for interrogation (ibid., line 26 ff.), and reiterated that he was not a party to the DIP investigation.  The entire role of YLP Kedem was that "we received information from the suspects themselves, that they apparently knew that they were going to be arrested and by whom" (ibid., p.  160, line 10 ff.).  To the defense attorney's questions, Superintendent Kogan added that he did not know either the ex-wife or the defendant, and explained that these were different districts of the Israel Police (ibid., line 24 onwards).

• Dror Rafaeli:

61. Sergeant Rafaeli was the head of the detective team in the relevant period. On 01.08.21, he guarded Yossi, immediately after Hela's arrest.  Yossi asked him if it was the Oz station, and Sergeant Rafaeli explained that it was not a station, but a police station.  Sergeant Rafaeli then asked Yossi if he knew the meaning of the unit's initials, and Yossi replied that he did, even though he had not been interrogated by the unit before:

I asked him again "So how do you know what YLP is, and also to know the meaning of the initials YLP" Yosef began to stutter and said "I know I know" I asked him "Do you know from where? This is a new unit that is hardly known, certainly not by its full name" Yosef replied after a stutter, "No, no, I saw on the forms" I will note that in none of the forms that Yosef saw (arrest warrant, search warrant) does not mention the name of the unit (see the action report P/36).

62. In the cross-examination, the defense attorney wondered why the aforementioned action report was recorded on 04 August 2021, i.e., a few days after the incident, and Sergeant Rafaeli replied that he did not remember the reason for this (in the transcript, p. 166, line 5).  Later, Sergeant Rafaeli went on to explain that the report was written because the very fact that Yossi knew the unit and the meaning of its initials seemed puzzling to him (ibid., line 23).
63. The defense attorney also asked how it was possible to know that Yossi did not see the name of the unit on the forms, and Sergeant Rafaeli explained that the HILP is a super unit, without a registration unit of its own, and therefore all the documents it issues are registered in the name of the Oz station (in the transcript, p. 168, line 25 ff., p.  171, line 11).  Moreover, in the words of Sgt.  Rafaeli, "When I ask him where you know this is a crime-fighting unit, I saw that he was a little nervous" (ibid., p.  170, line 21 ff.).

• Adir Kadosh and the police witnesses regarding the incident of the report:

64. Sergeant Sgt. Kadosh served as a traffic patrolman at the relevant time of the report incident and was in a traffic car, together with policewoman Shoval Cohen.  In the action report, which he compiled shortly after the incident, Sgt.  Kadosh described the sequence of events as follows:

A team of volunteers came up in front of me because they stopped a car and the driver refused to identify themselves to them, I together with the policewoman Shoval pulled over to them in order to identify the driver, on the way to them a woman named Neta Cuneo called me who identified herself as a police officer from the Tel Aviv Police Department...  She asked me if I could release the driver, who goes by the name of Yossi, and she said that she would give him a head, and that a ticket would not be filed for the driver, I told her that he had committed a traffic offense and worse than that, he refused to identify himself to the volunteers, and therefore a report would be filed against him...  After the call, she sent me a message if there was a possibility that the volunteers would release him, a message that was not answered by me...  When I arrived at the scene, the same policewoman called again...  Attached is a video from a body camera (see the action report of 01 April 2021, P/61, and the text message photograph P/62).

65. The statement taken from Sergeant Sgt. Kadosh was submitted in lieu of his main interrogation (marked P/61A.  See the transcript, p.  145, line 17), and a photocopy of the text message sent by the defendant to Sergeant Major Kadosh, in which she wrote: "Adir, see if there is a situation in which [m]volunteers will release Yossi" (P/62).  In his statement, Sgt.  Kadosh detailed the sequence of events and regarding the defendant's conduct, he added: "I've been a policeman for 12 years, I've never been called in such a sequence of calls.  Now that I examined the young man, I was also amazed, he is a criminal person, it does not seem logical to me that a policewoman is so under such pressure on that person" (P/61A, line 39 onwards).
66. In the cross-examination, the defense attorney accused Sgt. Kadosh of saying that when he arrived at the scene he had already seen that a report had been registered and the driver identified himself, to which he replied: "I arrived at the scene at the stage before the reports were registered.  Had a discussion with the volunteer team...  In the process, I identified the suspect since he had refused to identify himself and had fled from the team earlier, and therefore I also arrived at the scene of the incident" (in the transcript, p.  145, line 26 ff.).  The defense attorney referred to a phone call (heard in the body camera video, see P/60), in which the defendant told Sergeant Major Kadosh that she did not wish to interfere in his work, but rather to cooperate with him.  The witness replied that there had been several conversations (in the transcript, p.  146, line 10), although he confirmed that the defendant had not threatened him (ibid., line 27).
67. The defense attorney also asked Sgt. Kadosh when he realized that Yossi had a criminal background, and he replied that this was when he arrived at the scene and checked his details at the police terminal (in the transcript, p.  147, line 1 onwards).  To the defense attorney's question as to whether the ex-wife had called him and provided him with information, the witness replied in the negative, stating that he did not know the ex-wife (ibid., line 22 ff.).    Kadosh added that the next day, the deputy commander of the UAV called him and asked to know who was in the car.  In response to the defense attorney's questions on this matter, the witness noted that there were "certainly" other people in the car - but that he did not photograph or inspect them, when in retrospect it was his mistake (ibid., p.  148, line 7 onwards).
68. The statement of the Sayeret Shoval Cohen, who, as stated, was in the patrol car together with Sergeant Major Kadosh, was submitted in place of her main interrogation (P/81). In its cross-examination and the defense attorney's questions, the patrol noted that it learned that Yossi was a criminal after they checked him at the terminal, according to an identity card (in the transcript, p.  152, line 15), and stated that according to her recollection, the defendant had called Sergeant Major Kadosh several times (ibid., p.  153, line 12).  Regarding the incident in the report, the two volunteers involved, Tzachi Gabbay and Shai Rosenblatt, also testified before me, whose statements were also submitted in the context of the main investigations (P/59Aand P/58A), with Gabbay's version shedding some additional light on the incident.
69. The volunteer Gabbay, who drove the patrol car in which the two volunteers were patrolling, prepared an action report (P/59) next to the traffic report (notice of payment of a fine) that he wrote to Yossi (P/57). In the action report, the volunteer described that after stopping Yossi on the way, he said:

...He handed me a cell phone in a hands-free / speaker whenthe speaker identified herself as a policewoman from "Tel Aviv Examiners" and asked me to give up on the driver who is a member of her family, saying that it was a shame that I was not cooperating and that if a family member of mine was in her interrogations she would have been considerate.  I reported the incident on the radio and spoke with Rabbi HaMishmeret Adir Kadosh, who arrived at the scene and instructed me to give a report to the driver (see P/59).

70. In the cross-examination, volunteer Gabbay noted that there were other people in the car who had gone out to smoke, but added that in the framework of registering a traffic ticket for the driver, the identity of the passengers was not clarified (in the transcript, p. 150, line 11 onwards).  Gabbay explained that he did not know and did not know that the driver (Yossi) was a criminal, since as a volunteer he was not exposed to a criminal record, and also confirmed that he did not feel threatened by the defendant, when he said that in the incident he innocently believed that he was really a member of her family (ibid., p.  151, line 4).  In the testimony of the volunteer Rosenblatt (ibid., pp.  164-165), no additional material facts were raised in the context of this incident.

• Female police officers who were in contact with the defendant:

71. Of the policewomen who were in contact with the defendant and were interrogated in this affair, three testified before me as a witness on behalf of the prosecution.   Lynn Tarno was interrogated under caution by Investigator Yavin in light of her entry into one of the PLA files of the Yelp Kedem interrogation.  However, the case against her was closed because the defendant gave an innocent explanation for this entry: according to this explanation on the day in question (12 July 2021), an investigator from the Kedem Police arrived at the Yiftach area and the entrance was made at his request, because he had to print material from the file (see memorandum P/52).  In any event, with regard to Lin's testimony in court, her statement to the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws P/83 was submitted in place of her main interrogation (in the transcript, p.  178, line 2), and also some of her correspondence with the defendant, correspondence that Lin gave to the interrogators (see P/47 to P/50).
72. Lynn served as an interrogation coordinator at the Jaffa station, knew the defendant for several years and became friends with her. In her statement, Lynn confirmed that she knew about the defendant's relationship with Yossi, but added that the defendant had multiple relationships after her divorce.  Lynn further stated that she had a working relationship with the defendant and made inquiries for her regarding the PLA files and their status, since the defendant had no criminal privileges (P/83, line 59 onwards).  As for the things that the defendant told her about Yossi, Lynn said that she "threw once that she thought he was a criminal or something like that, and I told her that she was a policeman and that she should not go with him" (ibid., line 127).
73. Lynn claimed that she conducted tests for the defendant only in the files of the Jaffa station, and when she was accused that on July 12, 2021, she entered a weapons file that was being conducted in Jerusalem, she said that the defendant may have sat next to her and entered her computer (P/83, line 109 onwards). In any case, Lynn noted that she examines a lot of files and therefore cannot remember such details (ibid., line 136 ff.).  According to her, she did not know that this was Yossi's case and in any case did not knowingly examine anything related to the defendant (ibid., line 146).
74. Lynn was willing to disclose her correspondence with the defendant to the investigators, but only on the relevant dates. From the correspondence that Lin forwarded to the interrogators and which were submitted to me (see mainly Bat.  47), it emerges as follows:

On April 5, 2021 (the day Yossi was summoned for questioning in the assault case) at 9:40 P.M., the defendant wrote to Lynn: "Send me Gal Gottlieb's number.  Who's on duty now? And who's night," and Lynn sent the defendant the contact details of Investigators Gal and Sivan Sabag.  At 10:08 p.m., the defendant wrote to Lynn: "Yossi is summoned for interrogation in Ayalon tomorrow.  I wanted to find out what it was about because the next day we are skydiving...  He's with me now" (22:09).