I am of the opinion that the defendant's words during the interrogation were referring to the Talmudic saying that originated in tractate Sanhedrin (72a):He who comes to kill you, kill him early", in response to the investigator's statement that if the complainant does not survive, the defendant will violate the command "Thou shalt not kill", amounts to incriminating behavior and the beginning of a confession that strengthens the accuser's evidence.
- Therefore, the defendant's statements to Officer Aviv during the search of his room, by way of marking the shape of a gun in his hand, along with his request to Officer Aviv that if he promised to protect him and his home, he would lead him to the place where he had placed the weapon, as well as the defendant's statement in his interrogation with the police, constitute incriminating self-statements that also strengthen the accuser's evidence.
Police interrogations of the defendant
- On July 20, 2022, the defendant was interrogated for the first time by the police, accompanied by visual documentation, after consulting with a defense attorney. The defendant stated that he understood the suspicions against him, but chose to maintain his right to remain silent, and did not respond to the questions addressed to him, including regarding his nickname, details of his clothing and his disputes with others (P/60 (statement), P/60A (transcript), P/60B (visual documentation)).
On July 24, 2022, the defendant was interrogated for the second time, after consulting with the defense attorney, and this time too he remained silent in response to the many questions addressed to him (P/82A, P/82B). An interrogation report conducted by Policeman Israel Siyanov on 24 July 2022 shows that in response to the interrogator's questions, "What brought you to do this" and whether the complainant took advantage of him and pressured him, the defendant remained silent, bowed his head and held both hands.
On July 26, 2022, the defendant was interrogated for the third time, after consulting with the defense attorney, and in response to most of the questions, he maintained his right to remain silent. In between, the defendant stated that he was an alcoholic and consumed alcohol every day, and that he was drunk on the day of his arrest. The defendant claimed that nothing had happened and that the interrogator wanted to make him confess to things that did not happen. Later, he argued with the interrogators and claimed that they thought they were God, like the judges who would decide who would be imprisoned (P/83A, P/83B).