If the defendant genuinely did not trust the interrogators, as he said, then it should be clarified again that he was not required to tell his version in its entirety in all its stages and processes. It was possible to suffice with a brief statement that the Chevrolet was not in his possession at all, but rather in the possession of Aviel Dadon, and to refer the investigators to Aviel Dadon for the purpose of questioning and clarifying the details about the vehicle's beams. Attorney Charlie Sabag, who represented him at the interrogation stage, claimed that he had advised him to adhere to the right to remain silent in light of the Investigative Unit's response to his claims, but as has already been clarified, we have not been persuaded that in this context real weight should be given to his words. It is clear that the statement that the Chevrolet was in the possession of Aviel Dadon was not incriminating.
Although the late Aviel Dadon was involved in the dispute between the deceased and his father Shimon Dadon, it was even clarified that the two (Aviel and his father) were involved in criminal activities, but there is a great distance between these and the interrogation of Aviel Dadon and his father with a warning as suspects in the murder of the deceased. Adv. Moran Vaknin did indeed give a statement about the alleged dispute between Shimon Dadon and the deceased on the very day the murder was committed, so did another person (Yaakov Greenstein, according to the testimony of Shai Peleg, and see P/13). The witness Zion Sarig, a neighbor of the deceased, also recounted the same dispute and other disputes that the deceased had with other neighbors and with others (July 10, 2023, pp. 2847 ff.). At the same time, it should be emphasized that not every dispute between the deceased and the person involved in that dispute can yield evidence that justifies his interrogation with a warning, for the offense of murder, of the person involved in that dispute. A minimal evidentiary basis is required for this purpose, and this did not exist in relation to Shimon Dadon or his son Aviel, not even in relation to others. This is the place to note and mention that the defendant was also not arrested and interrogated immediately after the dispute between him and the deceased became known (on the day of the incident), since the investigative unit took the trouble to collect additional evidence before a decision was made on his arrest and suspicion, including his interrogation with a warning, for the murder of the deceased. As Roy Weinberger testified (January 22, 2023, p. 1665, para. 27), "If we had seen that Dadon was connected to the car, of course it would have been a direction." In other words, an existing conflict, or even the existence of a motive, is not enough to investigate a person as a suspect in a brutal and cruel murder.