05a7d13444764f4a0300000094b92aa3.docx

You
Center-Lod District Court

42209-04-19 State of Israel v. Silver (Supervised Detainee/Prisoner) et al.
21 Feb 2023
before
The Honorable Judge Liora Brody, Deputy – Avd
The Honorable Judge Michal Barak Nevo
The Honorable Justice Michael Tamir
The accuser
Israel
against
Defendants
1. Amos Dov Silver (detainee) ID 036559680
2. Bar-El Levy (Detainee) I.D. 304864762
3. Ofir Michel ID 039076229
4. Roy Ashkenazi 036418689
5. Ran Buganim, ID 036791416
6. Shimon Tohami 303028484
7. Omri Shmuel Meyerson, 1970 046248977
8. Idan Burla, 1970 207278557
<#2#>
Present:
Counsel for the accuser - Adv. Shiri Rom and Adv. Yoni Hadad
Counsel for Defendant No. 1 - Adv. Itai Bar Oz and Adv. Nitzan Beilin
Counsel for Defendant No. 2 - Adv. Nitzan Beilin
Counsel for the Defendant No. 3 - Adv. Itai Bar Oz
Counsel for Defendant No. 4 - Adv. Omri Rosenberg
Counsel for Defendant No. 5 - Adv. Liran Zilberman
Counsel for Defendant 6 - Adv. Itai Bar Oz
Counsel for defendant 7 – absent with the permission of the court
Counsel for Defendant 8 - Adv. Itai Bar Oz
Accused No. 1 himself (arrived late)
Defendant No. 2 himself (arrived late)
Defendant 3 – No stabilization due to illness
Defendants 4,5,6 and 8
Defendant 7 – Exemption from appearing
<#2#>
protocol
Hon. H. Brody: 42209-04-19. State of Israel v. Amos Silver and others. Before the
panel sitting on trial. Meeting of February 21, 2023. Present: Counsel for the
accuser Advocates Shiri Rom and Yoni Hadad, Counsel for Defendant 1 Adv. Itai Bar
Oz, Advocates Itay Bar Oz and Nitzan Beilin, Counsel for Defendant 2 Adv. Nitzan
Beilin On behalf of Adv. Itay Rozin, Counsel for Defendant 3 Adv. Bar Oz On behalf
of Adv. Kobi Sudari, Counsel for Defendant 4 Adv. Omri Rosenberg, Counsel for
defendant 5 Adv. Liran Zilberman, counsel for defendant 6 Adv. Itai Bar Oz on
behalf of Adv. Nadav Greenwald, counsel for defendant 7 absent with court
permission, counsel for defendant 8 Adv. Bar Oz on behalf of Adv. Einat Ben Moshe,
defendant 1 has not yet appeared, we have been told that he is on his way to court,
defendants 2 and 3 have not yet appeared, Counsel for the accused may continue to
interrogate the witness even before defendants 2 and 3 come to court.
A.T/25 Superintendent Ran Fleisiger, after being legally warned, responds in cross-
examination to attorney Itai Bar Oz:
Hon. H.S. Brody: Superintendent Ran Fleisiger, good morning.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Good morning.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On the witness stand, Superintendent Ran Fleisiger, still under
warning to tell the truth, continued cross-examination by attorney Itai Bar Oz,
please, sir.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Just note before we begin that Attorney Sudri gave me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
Attorney Bar Oz: Shafir Michel was not feeling well, he sent Shiri a medical
certificate.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And is there agreement that the absence should be discussed?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Of course, you also have to present to the court and submit an
appropriate application. So by agreement the hearing will be held in his absence.
Yes. Please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Well, good morning, Ran.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Good morning.
Q: Last week I mention we talked on the first day some general things about your
role in the force, the general framework of the investigation, on the second day we
started talking about the issue of Ukraine and what we talked about is mainly about
the issue of authority, your authority to investigate how it was carried out? Today
we will continue in Ukraine and go down to resolutions of what the physical
conditions of the investigation were like and we may also get to the essential
things of the right to consult and things like that, we will also accompany it a
lot during the day with screenings of the investigation itself, okay?
A: Yes.
Q: Good. Ok. Look, we talked about the fact that in fact in the investigation
itself from the moment it started in the room there were no Ukrainians at all, is
that true?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. And I noticed that in the refresher memorandum T/439.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Tf which?
Adv. Bar Oz: 439. It's actually when you were in the prosecutor's office on January
10, you sat down with June, right?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes.
Q: And the only thing that came up in this refresh was the Ukraine issue, how did
that come up in the refresh? Have you been asked questions about the investigation?
Who was present? Where?
A: I went through everything that was relevant to Ukraine, especially the
investigations.
Q: Okay.
A: We talked about who was where? Maybe, I think so, I don't remember.
Q: Did it come up on your own initiative? I mean, you saw the investigation in
Ukraine, read the documents and suddenly remembered?
A: I read the documents, I saw much of the investigation from the video, that's it.
Q: Okay. Look, when you testified here in the main interrogation you are asked by
my colleague, did the Ukrainians hear the interrogation? And you said, 'I guess
so.'
A: That's right.
Q: I mean, what you've testified here is that you don't have 100% certainty, but as
an assumption you assume that the Ukrainians heard the investigation.
A: That's right.
Q. And you were precise, you can't vouch for it, you weren't in the other room
yourself and you heard how things sounded from the other side, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. I also have to say, everything that happened in the previous discussion, I
did get the impression, Ran, that you are an honest person, you come and say
answers even if they are uncomfortable, even if you feel maybe that it is wrong you
say things as they are, I was really positively impressed by it, that's why it was
strange to me when I compared your answer in the main investigation to Refresh
T/439, I present to you T/439 and I refer mainly to clause A of the refresh.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Taff?
Adv. Bar-Oz: 439, Refresher Memorandum of January 10, 2023, Section A, can you read
us Section A?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes. "In the room adjacent to the suspect's
room were Ukrainian investigators who heard the interrogation."
Q: Okay. When I look at it there is a gap between the determination that in the
next room Ukrainian investigators sat and heard the investigation versus the answer
here that you assume they heard the investigation, you appreciate that.
A: The gap can be bridged easily.
Q: Please.
A: That's why I said I had 2 indications that they heard, a. Once we called them we
asked to move the handcuffs.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Speak in our direction, please.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Excuse me. 2 significant indications
according to which I more than assume that they heard the interrogation, a. Since
once I asked them to come and move the handcuffs, of course they did it and the
second time.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, how did you ask?
A: We read. Can't remember if we read.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Did you read from the room?
A: From inside the room, yes, yes. In my opinion, I probably called Igor.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: That's without leaving the room.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Okay.
A: And the second time someone came in, one of them I don't know who because I was
the one with his back to me and asked to speak weaker.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's what we talked about when it was in the hotel.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Early in the morning.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You know, what you're telling me actually doesn't bridge any gap.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Isn't it, excuse me?
Q: It doesn't bridge any gap because you have indications, we'll see them these 2
points, even 3, there are 3 points where you needed them, but I'll show you these 2
points and still it's some kind of assumption of yours, you don't say that for sure
that they heard, we'll also see how long it took them to arrive when you called
them about the handcuffs, You don't know if there are any microphone listening
devices in this room that they hear things in high quality, right?
A: That's right.
Q: You don't know by what technique, that is, how they even listened, what did they
attach yogurt to the wall and put the ear? How did they hear it? Don't you know how
they heard that?
A: That's what I said, these 2 indications indicate that they heard it.
Q: Okay.
A: You can contradict it, it's not a thousand percent and I didn't go into the next
room to make sure they were listening.
Q: Okay.
A: From these 2 indications, I conclude that they have heard.
Q: So you know what, let's not leave the ensemble in suspense, let's see the
relevant section and I refer to T/468A.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Taff?
Adv. Bar Oz: 468A, Disc 514, 468A This is the documentation of the investigation,
the relevant parts The relevant transcript is T/468T
Hon. H.S. Brody: Which?
Adv. Bar Oz: T/468To, I also say to your honor for the greater convenience and the
recording that on disk T/468A it starts at 03.05 for the time counter, we will
start back a bit.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, the division there of all the letters is all.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I will explain to Madam, the investigation in Ukraine was split
into 13 discs, each of which is about 20 minutes, so each disc received a different
marking and its transcript also received a different marking.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, but eventually.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Right, am I right?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's a continuation of one investigation, yes?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Everything is an investigation, T/468 is the investigation in
Ukraine and it is divided.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Is this page with us?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Which page is this out of 15?
Adv. Haddad: This is the beginning, this is the key of the binder.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: B-15.
Attorney Bar-Oz: B-T is page 3, sir.
Attorney Bar Oz: Even from the last line.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: "Can the handcuffs go forward?"
Attorney Bar-Oz: So we're starting back a bit.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now pay attention, I'll tell you to stop right after every time
you say. Ok.
Recorder: Only when you project it don't ask questions.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem. Please, we are projecting.
(Playing video).
1. First time. Aren't you recording now, Ronen?
Recorder: I record all the time.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Great. So you call him now at 3.05, Igor for the first time, he
comes to you as soon as you call him?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I don't remember exactly how many seconds it
took him.
Q: I don't remember.
A: I didn't measure.
Q: Let's keep seeing.
(Projecting video continuation.)
Detained. A second time, Igor, he still can't hear. Keep.
Stop. Third time when you call him 'Igor', he still doesn't come. Let's move
on.
Stop for a second. Soon we'll see who's coming, but look, 'Igor, Igor, Igor,
someone', I mean, I understand that Ukrainians don't sit like that with their ears
tight because I would expect that the second you say 'Igor' something will start
happening, but you call him 3 times, he's there like a paw fish with the handcuffs
behind his back, even after that he asks 'Is there anyone here?' So from your
indication, I'm not at all sure they were attentive to the investigation.
A: Another conclusion may be that they didn't understand that I was calling Igor,
they didn't pay attention to it because Igor might not be there, so I read Igor 3
times, the third time they understood that they were calling someone who was
supposed to be with them.
Q. If he wasn't there, where would he be?
A: I don't know.
Q. After all, as far as you're concerned, you know that you're not running things
there, you're not responsible for the whole issue of the physical conditions of the
investigation and the rights, after all, the Ukrainians have to warn him, right?
The Ukrainians are supposed to be responsible for this, we already agreed on a
previous discussion, right?
A: I operate there under the authority of the Ukrainians, that's what I said last
time.
Q: That's right, great. So what did Igor go down to smoke a cigarette down exactly?
These are the first minutes of the interrogation, the first 3 minutes.
A: Or was in the bathroom, I have no idea, I don't know, I don't know where Igor
was at that moment.
Q. I guess he wasn't in the bathroom at that moment and I guess he just doesn't
hear, now, if he doesn't hear you calling him 'Igor, Igor, Igor,' how is he going
to hear the resolutions of the warning, of informing about consulting with an
attorney, silence, how will he hear that?
A. I can't guarantee that he heard every single word.
Q: Of course you can't.
A: And like I said, the only thing I have is the 2 indications I mentioned earlier,
I don't have beyond that.
Q: Here, this is the first indication that I think is actually a negative
indication, it's an indication that he doesn't hear you well, certainly not again
to the level that he can intervene when an American citizen to whom you perform
some kind of interstate legal aid operation asks to consult with the consulate, he
doesn't hear it, right? Can we agree on that?
A: I guess so.
Q: And that's why what's listed in T/439 is inaccurate. Allow it back?
A: It says that Ukrainian researchers heard, not necessarily Igor.
Q: The audio statement is inaccurate, I guess.
A: It says Ukrainians, it doesn't say Igor.
Q: It's even more, you know, it's even more.
A: The statement is actually accurate.
Q: You are.
Hon. S. Brody: Ran, Ren, sorry for a moment, but the Ukrainians may have heard, but
they don't understand the language.
Hon. S. Brody: So I mean, we need both the ear and the bridge of the language here,
if I'm there then we're quiet about the language.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. Let's go on for a moment and see who comes to take off his
handcuffs. I'm just saying, I'm just saying that we'll show it again later when
Silver is here because there are also important things that are specific to him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What do you mean that they are specifically important to him?
Attorney Bar-Oz: I want him to say something about the person's identity.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. Let's move on. You know what you're going to rewind 10
seconds again to 3.
Hon. Barak Nevo: One minute.
Attorney Bar Oz: We'll see from the beginning.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Beilin, just one second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, sorry.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, let's see.
Okay, who is the person who came in? Wait, wait, Beilin.
ATTORNEY ROM: I guess they heard. What a piece.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: Poems.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, intervene.
Hon. Barak Nevo: We don't need to.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Who is the person who entered, Ran?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: I know that I have the protocol.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I think it's me.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What?
A: It's me.
Q: Is that you? Who tells him to 'be calm'?
A: I didn't notice.
Q: Snir Edri, come, let's continue.
A: Okay.
Q: It's not the Ukrainian.
Wait, second stop. It's not you, you're the voice behind the camera.
A. I, no, no, I'm behind him, I put my hand on him and tell him, 'Be calm.'
Q: Well, let's move on.
Stop for a second. It's not Igor and it's not Ukrainian, but Amos asks you
'are these Ukrainian police?' and you don't answer him, you answer 'hard question
you asked'.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Exactly, that's what he answers.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right. Why don't you answer him?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't know.
Q: Look, a person is being interrogated in Ukraine and you're there like a tourist
and he asks you, your interrogator, 'Do the people here have the legal authority to
hold me in this interrogation? Is it Ukrainian police?', why don't you say 'yes' or
'no' to him? After all, either they are Ukrainians or they are Israelis, why not
tell him?
A. I don't know why, if I answered him.
Q. You said 'hard question' to him, you didn't answer after that.
A: I don't know, it doesn't cost me.
Q. You don't think it can create any misrepresentation of the interrogee when he
asks you, he's in a foreign country, 'Are the people who just came to open my
handcuffs Ukrainians or are they Israelis?'
A. I don't know why I didn't answer at that moment.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Did you know the answer?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay. And who was it? You know?
A: The Ukrainian policemen I guess.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, it could be.
A: I don't know that strangers came in.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, not foreigners, but maybe it was someone from the consulate, I
don't know.
A: No, no, to the best of my knowledge Ukrainian police officers.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'll tell you beyond that, I'm not sure, I don't want to mislead
God forbid, but to the best of my understanding these are Israelis, now whoever
talks to him will speak to him in Hebrew and it's not Igor, let's continue.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Stop a moment. Do you see who it is?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes, but I don't recognize.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Do you know him?
A: And if he's Israeli then.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Who? Who?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Stop a moment. These two people are Snir Edri and Sergei Golitzer,
Snir Edri from the Northern Police Department, Sergei Golitzer from the Tax
Authority and they take off his handcuffs, not Igor or the Ukrainians, they took
off his handcuffs.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: No, it's not true what you just said.
Q: Here, please. "Ahlen, Ahlan, hello, hello, I'm Sergei."
A: That person, no.
Q: 'I am Snir.'
A: But they're both sitting, no, they're sitting on the side of Sergei's name.
Q. He talks to the people standing in front of him.
A: And Snir.
Q: And they take off his handcuffs. Let's see it again.
A: No, absolutely not.
Q: Good. Let's see it again.
A: That person standing there.
Q: Put 10 seconds back.
In another 5 seconds we will understand the connotation.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Stop a moment. He talks, he doesn't talk to the one who takes off
his handcuffs, he looks at someone who is there.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: From his left.
Hon. Barak Nevo: To the left of whoever lowers it, that's what it looks like at
least.
A. This person who takes off the handcuffs, let's do it for a moment.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Please.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: The person who takes off the handcuffs is
not Snir and it is not Sergei.
Q: And who is it?
A: The Ukrainian policeman.
Q: The Ukrainian policeman. What is his name? You know?
A: I don't know.
Q: I don't know. All right. Why does he say 'Ahlen, Ahlan' when he looks at him?
A: Who tells whom?
Q: Amos.
A. I don't know maybe he's just saying 'Ahlan,' I have no idea why he's saying
'Ahlan, Ahlan,' the bottom line.
Q. And he says to him, here he understands.
A: To the best of my knowledge, second, unless you renew something for me here, as
far as I know it's a Ukrainian policeman.
Q: Look. I have nothing but what my eyes see.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, there is also Amos.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, he's late.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, all right, but you probably asked him who it was.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sure. Now, and he says something else, but doesn't want to just
say.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, all right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's why I said we'd see again. I don't have any of the
investigative material in this huge case, I don't have a nose, I have one document
from Ukraine translated into Hebrew that relates to the days he was detained there
and his extradition, I don't have a single document about the operation itself, I
also asked for the file that Israel requested, they told me 'there is a presumption
of administrative propriety, you can't get it right now', both Snir and Sergei
didn't write anything about Ukraine, Snir wrote down a little memo, I have
nothing, I don't even know what they were wearing, what they looked like, what they
did, how they were briefed, nothing and so all I'm telling you is what I see from
this movie and what I see here is Silver looking at a man who takes off his
handcuffs, says to him, 'Ahlan, Ahlan' And after that you also tell him 'in front'
and then continue, everything is in Hebrew, that's what I see here, come and
describe to me that the investigation took place where Sergei and Snir were all
along. There's a table here, where are you sitting?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I sit on the left, on the right side of
Amos, Snir and Sergei sit on the left.
Q: I mean, you're on the right side of the screen?
A: I'm on the right, if I'm busy, Ran is on the right, Sergei and Snir are on the
left.
Q: Okay.
A. So when the Ukrainian policeman came in, he may have said to him, 'Ahlen,
Ahlan,' but continued.
Q: Wait.
A: Continue talking after that, a second I'll continue, continue talking with Snir
and Evgeni, this person who appears there is a person I don't know.
Q: I'm now looking at the screen.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, how will we have Evgeny now?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Sorry, Sergei.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you do it again?
A: Sorry.
Q: The transcription after that was also confused.
A: Sergei, I don't know what I have.
Q: They called him Evgeni.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What will happen?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't know why I call him Evgeni.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sure. Ok. It's the screen, are you on the right?
A: To the right of Amos.
Q: Now on the right.
A: No, no, I got up earlier, called the Ukrainian policeman and went back.
Q: I want you to position me now, we're in this crowded courtroom, are you on the
right where the judges are?
A: No.
Q: The other way|?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. And are they on the other side?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. And when you say 'go ahead' to whoever takes off the handcuffs, to whoever
moves the handcuffs.
A: Yes.
Q. How does he understand this 'front'?
A. A moment ago I went outside to tell him, so I think as I was talking you could
also hear it in speech maybe, you could hear that I was trying to explain to him to
move the handcuffs forward, he might have figured it out during and then.
Q: That you go outside?
A: Yes. After all, I just got up.
Q: So you're wearing the black shirt?
A. Yes, I said I was the one who passed, went out, told him to 'calm down,' put my
hand on him.
Q: So in general you reinforce my claim from earlier, 3 times I said 'Igor',
'someone', it also didn't help and you had to go outside to call Ukrainian.
A: No, he was there, after all, Amos also said a second ago, 'There's someone
there, but it's not Igor,' I mean he sees them there, they also understood that we
call someone, maybe their name is Igor, they peeked, but apparently their Hebrew
isn't good enough to communicate and then for a second and then I get up and call
him and explain to him to move the handcuffs forward and then he's the one who
arrives, The person who comes to the best of my understanding is a Ukrainian
policeman, it's not Yevgeny and no, it's not Sergei, sorry, I'll write on a note.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Do you want a big note to write you 'Sergei' on it and look at it
all the time?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: It is neither Sergei nor Snir.
Adv. Bar Oz: Acquisition tool.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, it will be an inquisition tool.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It really shows that the Ukrainians were attentive I say this
cynically, they were attentive to the interrogation, they were really attentive, at
the beginning it is the most important moments, these are the moments of cracking,
you take the suspect, by the way we are here soon and we will talk about the
physical conditions, but in the middle of the night, in underwear, informing him of
his rights, his obligations, Warn him, these are the critical moments of the
interrogation and what I understand now The Ukrainians were really not in touch,
they are sitting in the next room and you assume they heard, but you shout 3 times
'Igor', 'someone', come out and you still explain outside that the handcuffs need
to be moved forward, it means that they were not focused on the interrogation at
all, they did not understand what was happening there, what are you saying?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: I'll divide it into 2.
Q: Please.
A: I claim that they were attentive, that's also what I understand, and on the
other hand they probably didn't understand what I am, what we're talking about
there
Q: But Igor didn't translate for them simultaneously?
A: I don't know.
Q: You have no knowledge of it.
A: No.
Q: Okay. Let's see that half minute again, say from 2.50, just like that.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Stop a moment.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: That's me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: In less, okay. And then at that point someone came in?
A. He says he sees someone there, again I'm with my back to the door, but he says,
'There's someone there and it's not Igor.'
A. Then I got up to get this person.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So the scene starts at 03 08 seconds, now we are at 0.
Recorder: Ma'am, you're not at the microphone.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And you can't hear me?
Recorder: Far like that.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The scene starts at 03 08 seconds We are now at 03 28 seconds.
Keep going, Beilin.
Stop. By 03:32, it was clear that someone was approaching him toward the
handcuffs. You can go on.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Can we stop for a moment, please? I just want
to clarify from what I'm hearing, it's very possible that Snir and Sergei have just
entered, as if that's how it sounds.
Q. That they just came in?
A: It sounds like that's how they came in, that they come in and say 'Hi there,' so
I'm saying that maybe now they came in and they weren't in the first place.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he also says 'they're happy to see me' or something like that,
I didn't understand exactly what, but.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: So further to what I said earlier in terms
of seats, they sat down on the right now, from what I hear they weren't before.
Q: No problem. So according to what you say, when Amos says, 'There's someone
here,' and he asks you, even if it's Ukrainian police, it's not Ukrainian police,
and it's not Snir and Sergei either? There was someone there.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: No, he doesn't exactly say that.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he says, 'There is someone there.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: 'There's someone there.'
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't know if it's intentional.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He says, 'There is someone there, but it's not Igor.'
A: It's not Igor, I don't know if it's aimed at Sergei, Snir or the Ukrainian
policeman, I don't know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: "There is someone here."
Attorney Bar-Oz: The Ukrainian policeman who was in the room before you asked to
take off handcuffs?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Before?
Q: That's what's strange to me because after all, we're in the scene before Snir,
you just explained that Snir and Sergei are coming in.
A: It sounds like Snir and Sergey are coming in now.
Q: Before Snir and Sergei get into your method, I'm not sure, but according to you,
there's someone in the room, it's the same one he's asking if it's Ukrainian
police.
A: No, no.
Q: Let's see again.
A: Again, second, I can sort you out, I don't need to see again.
Q: Please.
A: I'm sitting across from him, or rather sitting on his right, I call several
times to remove the handcuffs and then Amos is facing the door, I'm with my back to
the door, saying 'There's someone there, but it's not Igor', from what I hear now
that Sergei and Snir say 'hello' to him, make some kind of acquaintance I
understand that I'm there alone with him and then he says 'There's someone there,
I don't know if it's aimed at the Ukrainian policeman, I don't know if it's aimed
at Snir or if it's directed at Sergei.
Q: I accept the explanation.
A: Okay.
Q: A few things just let us get it sorted. First of all, we have no dispute that
even in the first stage of the interrogation there is no Ukrainian in the room at
first, you said, 'I'm alone with him and Snir and Sergei are coming in,' is that
true?
A: Yes, that's also what I understand right now that I see it.
Q: Great, great. The same one with a grey coat you claim is Ukrainian, I'm not
sure, I think he turns to him when he says 'Ahlen, Ahlan', but he leaves the room
after he takes off the handcuffs, right?
A: That's right.
Q: 100%? We'll see it again to sort it out and move forward.
(Pause in recording).
Hon. Barak Nevo: He's going out.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: He leaves the room, yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, stop.
A. He doesn't stay, he takes off his handcuffs and leaves.
Hon. Barak Nevo: After he takes off the handcuffs.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, I think you said before.
Attorney Bar-Oz: By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, at no point did I hear a
translation into Ukrainian, that is, Igor saying 'Yuri' and something in Ukrainian,
he said 'move the handcuffs forward', all I hear is Hebrew.
Q: And I also hear you saying, doing this, tapping your fingers and saying, 'Come
on, handcuff forward,' do you say that to Igor?
A: No.
Q: That sounds like a real imperative.
A: I say this, I don't know about the command, I say this to the policeman.
Q: That's how 'handcuffs ahead.'
A: To the Ukrainian policeman, I may have called him, this, it was not a piece of
command.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To whom do you say that?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I think to the Ukrainian policeman.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But in Hebrew you say.
A: What?
Hon. H.S. Brody: But it's in Hebrew.
A: True, maybe I did some pantomime for him, I'll just mention one thing that I
don't know how to say if it was in real time or now that I'm thinking about it, but
Sergei speaks Ukrainian, as far as I remember or Russian, well, leave, no matter,
not sure, I think I spoke to the Ukrainian policeman.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You testify, it is.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, no.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And then what did you say?
A: I think I spoke to the Ukrainian policeman.
Hon. H.S. Brody: One more time.
A: I said, I think I was talking to the Ukrainian policeman.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now tell me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, just a second, last time, if I remember correctly, I asked
you if there was a connecting door or something and you told me no.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: And he said no. He said no.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: To the best of my recollection, there was no
connecting door.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So how does he know there is someone there? I mean how, like if
there was a connecting door I can imagine seeing either half open or something.
A: Because it faces the opening to the exit.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Got it, what is he looking at? Leaving the room as if to the
hallway?
A: Yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So what is 'there is someone there'? Hallway?
A: No, it was the room it was at the end of the corridor, I mean opposite there is
nothing.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay, so how?
A: He actually sees a wall, so that's what I said earlier that Ukrainian policeman
must have realized that we called Igor a few times and then he came and peeked into
the room.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Got it.
A: Now again I repeat that either it's the Ukrainian policeman or it's Sergei or
it's Snir.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Were you with an open door?
A: Yes, at least at first, in my opinion later on.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Wait, the open door is.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: In front of Amos.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Opposite is directly opposite.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Further down the table.
A: Yes. Long table.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: And the room of the policemen on the right or on the left?
A: On the left.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Left.
A: That's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Did you see them in this room?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Who?
Q: The Ukrainians? Did you see them in the room, sitting?
A: No, I didn't see them, no.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Wait, to Amos's left.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Amos's, yes.
A. I didn't see them sitting in the room.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You haven't seen.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No.
Q: Okay. You also said that you don't remember how many Ukrainians were there
exactly.
A: I think 4 but I'm not sure.
Q: Okay. And as far as Israelis are concerned, look, you're going there, we said in
the previous discussion, we have Snir Edri from the Northern Regional Directorate,
Sergei Golitzer from the Tax Authority, and we have Ms. Tali Levy from Yalak, did
you say?
A: It seems to me that from Yalak, I said from Lahav, but it seems to me that from
Yalak, I'm not sure.
Q: Okay. So you're at least 4, right?
A: That's right.
Q: We said there was Evgeny which was probably a disruption of yours.
A: Sergey, yes.
Q: Okay. Do you remember if you were more than 4 or only 4?
A: I don't know of anyone else who was there.
Q: I don't know.
A: Another Israeli who was there.
Q: Now the question, look, you're sending somebody, you're not from an organic
unit, everyone comes from a different unit in the police.
A: That's right.
Q: They're sending you abroad, it's something that's quite unusual, you don't
travel abroad every day on behalf of the police, you're also your first time, so it
was special, you divided tasks between you, you determined who would be the
commander of the force? You are in some hierarchical body that travels abroad for a
mission.
A: No, as I mentioned last time, I accepted my assignment, you also asked last time
what each person's role was or why they came.
Hon. Barak Nevo: You speak quickly and with your back to us.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Sorry, sorry. I was also asked earlier
whether I knew what the mission was or why everyone came and I said I didn't know,
I accepted my mission, there was no hierarchy of a force commander.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not a hierarchy, but I assume from what you say about the unitary
affiliations that everyone had a slightly different decree or a slightly different
issue.
A: Apart from Sergei, who came in his tax hat, I can't say why the others came.
A: As the lawyer noted, Snir asked almost no questions, Tali didn't either, so I
don't know why they came.
Hon. S. Brody: Snir didn't ask and?
The Hon. Barak Nevo: "And Tali is also almost not."
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT FLEISIGER: And Tali didn't either, so I don't know why
they came.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Still in the investigation itself, even now from the very
beginning we see and we will see later that when Amos wants something he turns to
you, even when he is cold he turns to you to get dressed, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Even with the handcuffs in this act we will see after that.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Here we just spoke. Conference, conference. At a quarter to 10
o'clock, both Accused No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, Amos and Barel, arrived.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So we can start now, until now it was just like that to pass the
time.
Hon. H.S. Brody: From the beginning, we begin.
Attorney Bar-Oz: From the beginning.
Hon. Barak Nevo: From the beginning, exactly.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Good morning, Yeshivat. Just. Good. We talked about the issue of
being present in the room and the division into tasks, and what I'm saying, all
that Amos wanted, he addressed you directly, that is, also what is related.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Confirms that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: To the physical conditions and also to the rights that there was
the discourse about a lawyer, when there was the discourse about the consulate, he
doesn't talk to Sergei, he doesn't talk to Tali, he doesn't talk to him.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: Snir.
Q: Snir/Evgeny either with Igor or with Ukrainian, he doesn't talk to Nose, he
addresses you.
A: That's right.
Q. As far as he's concerned, you're in control, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. And as much as now that Nir Edri would decide to use it to extract
information from him, not that he would have to work too hard for it, but to make a
banana spoon of the Shin Bet, to force him, you know this interrogation exercise?
Acacia.
A: I know it is.
Q: A teaspoon of a banana.
A: Yes, I know.
Q: Great. A ticking bomb is allowed, in other cases it is forbidden. He would like
to force him, what would you say something to him?
A: Sure.
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: So you're at least on his face above him.
A: I don't think it's interesting to be above him or not above him, I think even if
someone like me had said to do such a thing I would.
(Talking together).
Q. You know so let's not go for something extreme that the eye and infuriates the
heart, let's not go for something like that, let's go for something else. Now
Sergei Golitzer is very interested in the economic characteristics of Telegrass and
he wants to make promises to Amos, he wants to promise him immunity if he finds out
where all the funds disappeared, where this mysterious apartment is, so he wants to
promise him immunity and you hear it, you can interfere in things, tell him 'you're
not qualified, you can't, what are you doing', Things like that?
A: I suppose there would have been some kind of dialogue if there was something
surprising like that.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: Which ones.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: A dialogue between me and me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: If you say.
Attorney Bar Oz: Which ones.
Hon. Barak Nevo: "I suppose it would if there were."
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes, if there were. Sure. If such a thing
came up, I assume that there would be some kind of dialogue between us about how he
does it or what he does, and there would also be a conversation between me and my
commanders in Israel to understand what to do with it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Because you're what? Because you're the most senior officer there?
A: No, I say it again and again.
Q: No, no division.
A: There's no issue there. Not.
Q: Even on the technical side, you're a command.
A: No, the technical issue as well.
Q: Golitzer.
A: Also on the technical issue.
Q: Yes.
A: There was no there, no division of.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The issue of seniority was not on the agenda, there was a division
of roles. That's what you're basically saying.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: Right, yes, I wouldn't even say division of
roles because I don't know what they did there, but.
Hon. Barak Nevo: If someone stepped on the other's feet, you guess.
A: So there was some kind of discourse, the same by the way, on the contrary, I
guess if I said to Sergei, 'You're not talking now,' then there would also be some
kind of discourse as to why, I mean, there was no hierarchy discourse, there was a
discourse of.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: Of coordination.
A: Partners in the mission, so to speak.
Attorney Bar-Oz: From a Messiah of Obligations to a Discourse of Rights. No, but.
Hon. Barak Nevo: There are no such words anymore.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. You are also in the interrogation there is also some scene
where Sergei a little bit asks questions but you take it in your direction, now,
what is hard for me to understand is also hard for me to believe even that 4, 5
police officers go to Ukraine one fine day in March without anyone briefing them,
without them talking among themselves who is responsible for what? Who is the most
senior? What happens in cases and reactions, scenarios? Nothing, it seems as if
completely randomly 4 police officers get on a plane, fly to Ukraine, do a very,
very unusual action really, unusually, even in extradition cases there are no such
investigations with warning almost before extradition, without anyone briefing
them, without anyone explaining to them what to do, what is allowed, what is
forbidden and in the end this is the result This is how it looks too, What are you
saying? There was nothing ahead of time in the country, briefing what to do if?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't remember that there was a joint
briefing, I remember that I had my mission of investigating Amos, nothing more.
Q: Okay. All right. Now look, you shouted 'Igor' here 3 times and you also added
'someone' that we're 3 minutes and 5 seconds into the interrogation and later you
remember, soon we'll see it too, you know what, let's see it, run for 9 minutes and
20 seconds, that's the part you asked it to be at a lower volume of the
interrogation. Let's hear it.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: 9:16.
Attorney Bar Oz: 9:16 No problem.
Stop. I don't hear him shouting and they still ask to lower the volume and
then really the interrogation continues that he talks like that in the volume which
is lower, after that they didn't ask to lower the voice anymore, that was the only
time and we are 9 minutes into the interrogation, I mention that it lasts almost 4
hours, right? There were no such additional requests.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT FLEISIGER: No, there were no other requests to lower
the voice.
Q: So tell me, please, if after 3 minutes you shout 'Igor, Igor, Igor', 3 times and
another says 'someone' and 9 minutes into the interrogation there is no shouting
here, they ask Amos to speak weaker and he does it, how can the Ukrainians sitting
next to in the next room how could they hear, understand, conduct this
investigation? How?
A: First of all, I think that the person asking there to lower the tone is Igor, by
the way, regarding where Igor was, and regarding the continuation, I again cannot
say for sure that they also heard the continuation of the investigation.
Q: Okay. It's an honest answer and I appreciate it. I also think that they could
not have heard the continuation of the investigation, I think that the statement
that the Ukrainians were in the next room and heard is false, is not, you yourself
also said that what is in T/439 is inaccurate and based on an assumption and I tell
you that they did not hear anything and had no ability to understand both on the
substantive level, also on the procedural level, Even on a technical level, do you
agree with me on this?
A: No, I don't agree, also regarding what I said in paragraph A. B-T/349 I think it
was, so again I'm not arguing about the understanding of the Ukrainians, I guess
they didn't know Hebrew, but I do think they heard what happened and as for Igor I
now assume now that I see it again so he did hear what happened at least until
minute 9, Then whether he heard or didn't hear I don't know how to say.
Q: Got it. Now, there wasn't some specific interpreter maybe Igor you guess knows
both, but there wasn't some paid interpreter sitting next to the Ukrainians
explaining things to them?
A: Not that I know.
Q: Okay.
A: I don't think so.
Q: Now look, I'm also, at this point I'll refer you again to N/158B You remember I
presented in the previous hearing and submitted to the honorable court Ukrainian
law Article 563 which relates to the presence of representatives from the foreign
authorities and the requesting country in which section I read it to you then and I
will not break my teeth again in the courtroom, but I read it to you then and
explicitly and I refer the court to article 563 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code,
paragraphs 1, 2 You can not in the territory of Ukraine directly address both
technical and substantive matters You can watch the execution of the procedure and
you can give comments and suggestions (English), these questions should be
accompanied by actions of the representatives of the foreign country, I understand
that it did not happen that it is not that you suggested to the Ukrainians that
Amos get dressed or that you move the handcuffs forward or you talked to them about
him asking to consult with someone from the consulate what to do, You managed all
these things alone, there wasn't a single minute you suggested to them or consulted
them, right?
A: No, it's not accurate, about the consulate it's true, I didn't ask them, I
didn't talk to them about it, about the dressing and the handcuffs I asked them to
do it, they could say 'no' to me and that was it.
Q: Did you ask the Ukrainians to get dressed?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Which is?
Attorney Bar Oz: Get dressed.
A: If you can take the handcuffs off, I don't remember exactly what the words were,
you can see it obviously.
Q: We saw the handcuffs, are you claiming that the person with the gray coat was
Igor, a Ukrainian?
A: No, he was Ukrainian.
Q: Sorry, right. When he asks to get dressed, do Ukrainians go with him? Do you
call Ukrainians?
A: I think so.
Q: Good.
A: Because he was handcuffed I can't put the clothes on him, I guess, again you can
see it and remember, I don't remember it by heart.
Q: I will also remind you, wearing pants is also possible with handcuffs.
A: Even with handcuffs, right.
Q. And you put a coat on him, you didn't take off the handcuffs when he asked to
get dressed.
Q: Okay.
A: He had this black coat on him, so when he asked to get dressed you didn't call
the Ukrainians, you controlled the situation.
A: Okay.
Q: So you agree with me actually, maybe a detail.
A: Agree about what? As for letting him get dressed and not asking the Ukrainians?
Q. I thank you very much for letting him get dressed, really it was nice of you,
really.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he asks you.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: The cynical comment is irrelevant, I ask what
you're actually asking about.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, there is absolutely no need, he asks you what you said to
him about, 'I agree with you that I let him get dressed and he didn't go with the
Ukrainian policeman?'
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I agree, I agree with the fact that in the first act of
handcuffs there is doubt about the person who put the handcuffs, the guy with the
gray coat, but other than that there are no Ukrainians in the room.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: All 4 hours.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But then you said to him, 'Do you agree with me that you were the
one who went with Amos to get dressed?' About me going with him or the Ukrainian
policeman?'
Attorney Bar Oz: I will be precise and even if it was not understood what I said,
you did not go with him to get dressed, you allowed him to dress, the one who went
with him was Snir.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: All right.
Q: Okay. Good. Ok. Now that we understood where the Ukrainians were all the time of
the interrogation, that it's not in the room and that we have any doubt at all
about their hearing and understanding of the content of things, it's about the
authority, after we also talked about the framework as a whole and I presented you
with the documents that show that in fact he was in illegal detention because,
according to the Ukrainian documents, he was arrested at 11 o'clock, let's now talk
about the physical conditions of the interrogation, What are the conditions under
which a person who is interrogated in such a serious and heavy case is found, we
will go over them one by one, okay?
A: Okay.
Q: Excellent. Ok. Look, please, first of all regarding the issue of understanding
the situation, we saw maybe let's see it again just for a moment the 3 and a half
minutes regarding the question is it Ukrainian police? I want Amos to see it too, 3
do 3:25. Come on for a second. You can get up.
Okay, stop for a second. The text itself is very interesting, we will also
touch on this later, your honor will see it, he explains to you about the motives,
the needs, but I want to talk about the understanding of the situation and I will
also show you that Amos during this entire period of time does not understand where
he is at all what the situation itself of this thing is, we start with the fact
that in 3 and a half minutes he asks you 'Is this the Ukrainian police?' You tell
him 'this is a difficult question', I asked you why this is a difficult question?
You didn't know how to explain it to me here, do you want to maybe after all?
A: Now that I understand that Snir and Sergei also entered, maybe I referred to
them, maybe I referred to him, I don't know how to say exactly.
Q: Look, you were very sure of yourself when you said that the person taking off
his handcuffs was a Ukrainian policeman, in a previous discussion you said, 'Maybe
it's Igor?'
A: No, no, I didn't say anything like that, whoever took off the handcuffs.
Q: Ukrainian, you say Ukrainian, no problem. So why not answer 'it's Ukrainian'?
A: So again, I don't know what my answer was based on or why I answered the way I
did, I may have referred to the Ukrainian policeman, I may have referred to Sergei,
I may have referred to Snir, I can't say now exactly why I gave the answer I
answered.
Q: Look, Snir and Sergei, you say to him, 'Snir Sergei, Ahlan, Ahlan, very
pleasant.'
A: I didn't show them where they were from, 'He's from a diamond, he's a scholar of
conscience.'
Q: Never mind, but it's Snir and Sergey.
A: Okay. So again I answered, to the best of my knowledge it was a Ukrainian
policeman.
Q: Okay. Look, forward, please, Beilin, to disc 527, 527 I refer in terms of the
transcript is T/468C.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Taff?
Adv. Bar-Oz: 468Power in terms of documentation P/468D.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: Page?
Attorney Bar-Oz: If we're talking about 468power, that's page 4.
Attorney Bar Oz: Wait, line, minute 6.16.
Hon. H.S. Brody: B-Ya, which page?
The Honourable Barak Nevo: 4.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, 28:4.
The Honorable Barak Nevo: 28:4.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is the very end of the investigation, literally.
Hon. Barak Nevo: 6.16?
Attorney Bar Oz: 6.16, even let's do it for 5 and a half minutes, okay?
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's a.
The Hon. Barak Nevo: Tah not 20?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, he was wrong.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, force.
Hon. Barak Nevo: There is no such thing. What is tah?
Hon. H. Brody: 468i.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Power.
Hon. Barak Nevo: There can be no tah.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Excuse me 29, not 19.
Hon. Barak Nevo: 29?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, yes, 29.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is no 29, there is no 29.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is power, it ends with force.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Wait, which is it?
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's already November.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, say T/468?
Adv. Bar-Oz: T/468, transcript of Silver Disc 527 interrogation, transcript.
Hon. H. Brody: Page 4.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right.
Hon. Barak Nevo: How is minute 616 the end of the investigation?
Adv. Beilin: 6.16.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, 6.16.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, I meant 6.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I said at the beginning, they divided it into 13 separate CDs,
each disc is about 20 minutes, something like that.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Which page?
Attorney Bar-Oz: We're in the transcript on page 4, the last page, it's a short
transcript. And I project from 5 and a half minutes.
(Playing video).
Stop. Look, we're at the end of a 4-hour interrogation, I'm already telling
you, he's starting You know at the end of the interrogation to come to his senses
and understand the situation and it's that 4 hours he spoke to the police and it's
an interrogation, but after 4 hours of interrogation in the room he asks you 'How
do the police officers in Ukraine know Hebrew?', I mean, he's one of the Israeli
people who until this moment was the end of the interrogation in a minute It ended
in the room He was sure it was Ukrainian and he asks you 'How do they understand
Hebrew?', You don't even answer him, you pass on a subject, do you remember this
situation?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, I'm also interested in who he was
referring to, I don't know.
Q: Do you want us to go back 20 seconds again?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he asks who he is saying.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, I wonder who he's aiming at? I don't know
who he's aiming for?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He doesn't know who he was referring to.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I also don't know, I don't know either, but I only know that even
after 4 hours and we jumped right to the end, he still wonders how the police
officers in Ukraine understand Hebrew, that is, he thinks that whoever is in the
room is a Ukrainian policeman who speaks Hebrew, that's how he thinks, do you want
to see it again?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: There's nothing there that I didn't
understand, I'm just asking, I don't know who he was aiming for?
Q: Okay. Was there a Hebrew speaking Ukrainian policeman in the room?
A: To the best of my knowledge, no, there wasn't.
Q: Good.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, I have a question, when you introduced yourselves Snir,
Sergei and you said who are you? Where are you from?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I certainly introduced myself.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Did you tell him where you were from?
A: Already with a warning, yes, I told him from the beginning, regarding Snir and
Sergei I'm not sure I told him who they are or where they are from.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Did they say?
A: I don't know, I have to look at the investigation, I don't remember.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Did they introduce themselves?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't remember, I have to look at the
interrogation, I don't remember.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Snir is a common Ukrainian name.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Almost like Ren. Look, I want to show you another passage,
this time from the middle of the interrogation, that also shows his lack of
understanding of the situation and who is against whom? And I refer to T/468 in
page 10 transcript unfortunately some of the transcripts without lines, but that's
up and to disk 523 16.28. Let's start, Beilin, from 16 and 14 seconds which is on
page 9.
Hon. Barak Nevo: To whom does he say 'you are the police'?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I let Snir talk to Sergei.
Attorney Bar Oz: No, to Tali Levy, to Tali Levy, take a step back about 5 seconds.
A: No, second.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he says 'you,' so it's not Tali Levy.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: 'Are you the police?' to which Snir replies,
'I am the police,' by the way I understand now I understand too.
A: To the previous question, did they introduce themselves? That he knew.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, yes.
A: Who is Sergei who is speaking from the Tax Authority?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, Sergei at first he told him that.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Because you just asked if.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I asked, I asked.
A: Sorry. I got confused between the 2.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'll also tell you a secret.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, we are similar.
Attorney Bar Oz: My hair is more.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Only by hair do we distinguish ourselves.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: You want to tell me a secret.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I wanted to tell you a secret, most of the questions I ask you I
know the answer to, I know the answer and still. Let's hear it again for a moment.
Even to 16.20.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Does he say that he 'thinks I once saw you'?
You can stop.
A: By the way, again I go back to what Her Excellency asked earlier about the play,
so when he says to Snir, 'Are you the police?' then he says 'Yes,' and then he
says, 'Yes, you told me already.'
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, yes, yes, I heard.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. Now actually Tali Levy sitting there I am, is there a
certain moment when she enters, is she there from the beginning? I didn't see it.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I don't know because I, I don't know because
I'm with my back to her, so.
Q: Okay.
A: I have my back to everyone except Sergei, who was in direct contact with me.
Q: Actually Amos.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You speak there, we don't hear.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Excuse me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is Sergei?
A: Except for Sergei sitting across from me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, like that, Tali, you're with your back to her.
A: That's right, both for Snir and for the door.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Snir also. Moment. And your back to the door and Amos's basically
facing the door.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Right in front of you. Ok.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And actually they're sitting next to you, they're not on Amos's
side.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: Amos sat at the head of the table.
Q: Head of the table, okay, but on the side, they're on your side, I mean, he's in
front of the door and they're all with their backs to the door too?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Very well.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But he said that he had his back to Tali and Snir, so they weren't
by his side, but probably behind him or something.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Behind me, right.
Adv. Bar Oz: Ran.
The Honourable Barak Nevo: Ran.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Facing Amos, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. They stand between you and the door facing Amos, that's what
you say.
Q: Okay. Now look, we said that actually none of the Israeli staff was the one who
knocked on the door and broke into it, right?
Hon. Barak Nevo: When?
Attorney Bar-Oz: At first in the initial detention?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: None of the 4.
Q: Israelis are being screwed.
A: From the 4th I mean me, Snir, Tali and Evgeni.
Q: Sergey.
A: We weren't. Excuse me.
Q: You're not, Ren.
A: None of us walked in the door.
Q: Okay. None of you knocked on the door, did you see with your own eyes the moment
of arrest?
A: I haven't seen.
Q. If I have a claim that they laid him down the floor and hit him in the ring?
A: I haven't seen.
Q: You haven't seen. Did he complain of pain in the ring at one point?
A: Not as far as I remember.
Q: Okay. We'll see it.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Take it, put it in front of you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is your answer? There?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: As far as I remember, he didn't complain
about the pinky, I hope I'm not mistaken.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Now we, have you seen if someone presents him with an arrest
warrant, if someone says to him, 'Are you under arrest for such-and-such?'
A: No, I didn't see, I went in after they arrested him.
Q: It's basically their responsibility of the Ukrainians.
A: Yes.
Q: Like all this investigation. In fact, you can't tell if he was told that he was
detained for extradition or that he was detained for interrogation?
A. I don't know if he was told or what he was told.
Q: You don't know, fine. Look, I want to show you.
Hon. S. Brody: You actually came to interrogate him in a hotel room, that was your
job.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But is this his hotel room or another room?
A: His.
Attorney Bar Oz: His, Madam hasn't seen the bong on the table yet? We'll see.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I don't recognize.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We'll see.
(Speaking in the background).
No, no, soon there will be a picture more of a thing, wait, anything at its
time.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Sorry, ignorance.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, when we received the investigation material, we received
Silver's investigation in files, go to the beginning of the first 514 right to the
beginning to the beginning Amos Dov Silver, let's see for a moment the first 20
seconds.
(Playing video).
Let's stop here. Ok. Now this segment you could also see maybe at the
beginning this is the first footage that is documented and the file is 002 What I
want to ask you is something like this, who brought this camera?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I.
Q: You. Are you actually responsible for documenting the investigation?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. Did you bring her from Israel?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you activate it at a certain moment?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. None of the others had control over her, didn't know her, didn't know when
to stop, when to start, you were the only one.
A: No, just me.
Q: He messed with the documentation of the interrogation.
A: Yes, they may have helped me there with charging, but.
Q: Okay. Now, on the first disk in 514 what we showed there are 2 files, 002, 003,
you can see it even here. Where 001 do you have any idea?
A: Yes, I think it's an attempt we made in the office to see that everything works.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I can't hear you.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I think it's an attempt we made in the office
to see that everything works.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, what kind of CD is that? 2 Files are on disk number?
Adv. Bar Oz: 514, this is the first T/468 A in my opinion. In your opinion.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: As far as I remember, yes.
Q: As far as you can remember, it's too.
A: Finish testing that it works.
Q: As far as you can remember, that's also nice, but it won't be able to help the
judges when they write the verdict, can you check that? That's important to me.
A: I can't check it, but probably.
Q: Isn't there a 001 file somewhere?
A: No. Before I left we checked that the camera was working, it was 001.
Q: I don't know.
A: I say.
Q: What kind of camera was that?
A: I don't remember.
Q: There is no confidentiality, no.
A: Can't remember which camera, what kind of camera?
Q: Yes.
Q: Does it still exist?
A: You have to check the unit to see if it still exists.
Q: Can I restore this file? I'm interested in what was in this file.
A: From a few years ago? It is impossible to reproduce it, I guess it is impossible
to restore it.
Q: Guess you can't reproduce. I understand. Now, when you're sitting across from
him, he's sitting handcuffed behind his back with his boxer, as we'll see soon,
these are the first words you say to him, 'Amos Dov Silver,' before that you didn't
speak at all?
A. I tell him afterwards, 'You said you wanted to see us, you wanted to meet us,'
so I guess there was some kind of statement by him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He said it here.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: In such a matter.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Here, here, at first he says it, no, no.
A: So no, no, I don't think there was any conversation before that.
Q: No conversation?
A: No, I'm very careful to warn before I start talking or the suspect starts
talking.
Q: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, wait, wait, Amos wants to tell you something.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: What?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, I say Amos wants to tell him something.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It was very important for Amos to say that Ran was right, really
collaborating with her.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, you can see that there was chemistry between them.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, maybe you'll move to their side as if that's it, what? Right.
And at the very moment of the arrest he said a sentence and you may have referred
to that as well, so it was important for him to strengthen you on this point.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: It's all to your credit.
Q: A lot of things to his credit, quite a bit, I think you think that way too, and
you said that to him quite a bit during the interrogations. But you received an
order from Israel, we'll see soon if it's Mayberg or Amir Lavon, to interrogate him
as soon as the outbreak began at the very first moment, right? You came with a plan
like this, you came already with the questions ready and you knew you were
interrogating him in your hotel room on March 12, 2019 at 4:20 a.m., is that
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Unlike what? I didn't get it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He knew he was coming to interrogate him specifically in a hotel
room at the moment of the break-in, as opposed to taking him to the police.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Update someone. Ok. Now basically you don't know if the Ukrainians
informed him that he was under arrest, what is the reason for the arrest, presented
him with a warrant?
Hon. H.S. Brody: It was he who said it was not in his presence.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, he doesn't have a presence.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He said that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So the first thing you start with, the first thing he hears in
Hebrew is this, 'Amos Dov Silver, I'm Ran, Lahav Unit Investigations Officer,' and
then this thing, right? Nothing preliminary?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: That's the first thing he hears from me.
Q. Do you know if other Israelis said anything during that time?
A: No, the only Israelis, maybe Igor, but I don't know.
Q: You don't know.
A: No.
Q: Okay. Now look, you actually start right after the warning to ask him questions,
right?
A: That's right.
Q: Substantive concerns to Tallgrass, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. Who set it up? Right at the beginning goes to the heart of things, but I
want to show you something, I refer to T/468T page 11 line 22, you can open file
003 at your place.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Page Which?
Adv. Bar Oz: Page 11, line 22 at T/468T on CDs is 514 from minute 15 in file 003 is
at 4.34, but let's do from 4.20, we like 4.20.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Which page again?
Adv. Bar Oz: Page 11, line 22. Ok.
Hon. H.S. Barak v.Shirt, look, now he's wearing a coat he's still cold that you
covered him with such a coat, but look at the accumulation of things, you surprise
the person in the middle of the night, interrogate him in the middle of the night,
1, when he's in a hotel room and not in a police station, 2, when he's without
glasses, 3, when he's handcuffed some of the time behind his back, then in front,
4, when he's cold, he's cold he's shaking and he doesn't see well either, It's
like taking advantage of all you really didn't hit him, God forbid, but all the
little things on a physical level to let him be in the most uncomfortable, most out
of the house, why do it like that? Why?
A: First of all you can argue about what is more convenient to be interrogated in a
police station or in a hotel, I'm not sure it's actually mandatory and no, I don't
know whether to win, but it's for this matter, another thing, you take things that
are not necessarily related to each other, to the subject of glasses I also need
glasses, wear glasses.
Q: That's right.
A: And I can also be without glasses, it doesn't impair my judgment or anything or
that, I didn't give him anything to read and he was without glasses and I took
advantage of the fact that he didn't see well. All these things that you bring up
are, you dismantle them as if to create some kind of representation that in my
opinion is a misrepresentation and is not true because everyone who sees this
investigation sees very clearly that it is being done in the most pleasant way
possible.
Q: What do you say?
A: Yes.
Q: I'm looking.
A: I say that completely.
Q: Mr. Fleisiger, listen.
A: Everyone who sees it now sees.
Q: Listen, listen.
A. See that I ask the questions, see that I give him answers, see his conduct, see
that everything that comes up, whether it's it.
Q: Listen, Ren.
A: Water, whether it's getting dressed, whether it's glasses, anything straight
brings, there was no malicious intent here, A. and B. I disagree with all the
unpleasantness you portray her.
Q: Ran, anyone who sees this investigation, yes, we're only in its first fifteen
minutes, sees that it was a disgraceful investigation, an inappropriate
investigation.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I suggest, I suggest.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I disagree with you.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Interrogate a person with underwear.
A: I disagree with you.
Q: Handcuffed behind my back.
The Honourable Barak Nevo: Adv. Bar Oz.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Does it make sense to you? Really.
The Honourable Barak Nevo: Adv. Bar Oz.
Recorder: You can't transcribe.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no, no.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Attorney Bar Oz and Superintendent Fleisiger, I suggest that none
of you say that everyone who sees the investigation is clear to him, because we
also see the investigation.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's right.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And you don't know what is clear to us.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So neither, you think.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It is right to investigate facts.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Exactly.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, onwards, facts.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Because you can disagree with what you're saying completely.
Adv. Bar-Oz: File 3, File 3, 4 and 10 Seconds Disc 515, we are still in Z. Only the
visual does not need to open the transcript, 4 and 15 seconds.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
Attorney Bar Oz: That's it, stop. Well, what's on the left side near his elbow?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: BONG.
Q: Bang. This bong is needed for investigation, say?
A: No.
Q: Really like?
A: No, it's not needed.
Q: So let's add to the inappropriate interrogation like this: I say that the man is
interrogated without glasses, handcuffed, with underwear, in the middle of the
night, after you wake him up and don't let him organize, a bang next to the
suspect, why should there be a bang next to the suspect in the interrogation? Why?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, who put the bang there?
Attorney Bar-Oz: He didn't take it down, he controls the source, he's Ran
Fleisiger, what are you kidding?
Speaker: Funny.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes? Don't know, maybe I'll interrogate you, I'll put a guillotine
on the table.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, what is the connection?
(Talking together).
Attorney Bar-Oz: Regardless, it's inappropriate, it's a disgrace, is this what a
criminal investigation looks like? What is this?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Why not with a syringe of heroin?
Attorney Bar Oz: A syringe of heroin is also good, why?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I don't, I don't think it's relevant to the
score whether it's a disgrace or not a disgrace, the bottom line is whoever put it
there, sorry, whoever put the bong there isn't me, it's probably busy, what's on
the table is obviously busy and what you see here on the contrary is even
reinforcing because I think in retrospect if I had noticed it then I would have put
it aside, But I didn't pay attention to it, just like I didn't pay attention to
the issue of pants, I focused on interrogating Amos, questioning Amos, asking him
questions and getting answers, that's all.
Q: For 12 minutes sitting in front of you a naked interrogator with small boxers
attached to his body, don't you notice that at all?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, enough, that's what we've exhausted.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But he answered, he answered.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Even before the break.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: You repeat yourself several times.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no, it is not.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, he says he's not paying attention, I want to ask.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But we have exhausted it already.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: You've asked that so many times.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I want to know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It really is.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Did he notice?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He told you no, he said several times.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: But he replied to you.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And then you asked him, he was already in the meeting when he came
in.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So I don't agree to that and I want to question him about it,
that's my job.
Hon. Barak Nevo: All right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That he's not telling the truth. You did notice it, I want to slam
it at him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So slam him.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Here, please. I'm telling you that it doesn't make sense, that
you're really an experienced investigator and that's why you were sent to Ukraine,
it can't be that 12 minutes, 12 and a half minutes you didn't notice that the
person sitting across from you on the other side of the table naked couldn't be.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He was not naked.
Attorney Bar Oz: With underwear, boxers attached. What do you say about that?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: A neighbor could be.
Q: Yes.
A: The fact is that not only that, by the way I understood that some of this video
was uploaded somewhere on the Internet, that he was interviewed by Amos and I
understood that he was also there.
Q: On Channel 2 Guy Peleg.
A: Second, okay and I also realized that there was some kind of reaction, laughing
about the fact that the police didn't notice that the bong was there, so obviously
if I saw I would have noticed it or given attention to it I would have moved it
aside, I didn't notice it, I didn't pay attention to it, I was focused on asking
Amos questions to get answers.
Q: Okay. Ok. Look, I want to really do some brief interim summary before we move on
to consultation. And I'm telling you and I'd love to hear your response to this,
all we've seen here a little bit in the previous discussion and from this morning
is basically the physical conditions of the investigation, leave the issue of
authority if you're even allowed to ask him questions or if the Ukrainians were
aware of what you're doing and controlled things. You interrogate him at night
after he wakes up from sleep, you interrogate him in a hotel room and not in a
police station, you interrogate him when he sits with underwear and a short shirt
on in the cold, you interrogate him when he is handcuffed, the whole interrogation
at first from behind, then from the front, you interrogate him when he is without
glasses, you interrogate him when he is with a bang on the table, you claim that 3
of these elements you didn't even notice, Bang, underwear and glasses, right?
A: I didn't say I didn't notice, I said I didn't pay attention to glasses for that
matter, I didn't pay attention at that moment.
Q: Okay. And all this is done unintentionally because you worry about
investigations?
A: A. All this was done unintentionally.
Q. Don't you look at what the person in front of you looks like?
A: A. All this was done unintentionally, B. The statement that he was interrogated
with underwear is inaccurate because the interrogation is 4 and a half hours and he
was 12 minutes with underwear on until they corrected it as soon as he drew our
attention to it, as did the glasses.
Q: Say, did you notice the bag of cannabis next to the bong?
A: No, I didn't notice it.
Q: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Where is there a bag of cannabis next to the bong?
Attorney Bar Oz: Beilin.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Attorney Beilin points us to something that is between the water
bottle on the left, why is this thing? What is this?
Adv. Beilin: Power adapter.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That's right, it has 2 chips, and the power adapter is on the
right side and between them.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: The bag of green weeds.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. But look, maybe he's like that right before you started
asking him questions or when the Ukrainians took him away and he was sitting there
maybe he smoked some bongs? What are you saying?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: I don't know.
Q: Maybe the Ukrainians let him smoke because they wanted it to be easier to get
things out of him, could it be?
A: There wasn't enough time, no.
Q: Are you sure? Did you see it with your own eyes?
A: I said there wasn't enough time from the time they came in until the moment I
walked in.
Q: You appreciate.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he tells you.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: There wasn't enough time.
A: I don't know how long it takes, to your question.
Q: Look, that's a lot of things you haven't noticed.
A: Smoking a bong.
Q: A lot of things that you didn't notice in the investigation that you conducted,
that you prepared in advance, that you traveled specifically from the country to
Ukraine with a team of 4 people.
A: Not a lot of things, 2 things.
Q. I'm telling you that this is an inappropriate investigation and that you noticed
these things and did it on purpose.
A: So I don't agree with you.
Q: Malicious.
A: I completely reject everything you said, nothing was done maliciously and
everything once flooded was immediately fixed.
Q: Okay. In fact, we have no dispute about the factual things, you say only that it
was not intentional, accidental.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And also that it wasn't, that it wasn't improper, he says.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I'm talking about awareness of things.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, he says both.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He disagrees with these 2 statements.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. What was appropriate? Let's break it down, the fact that
there's a bang on the table and drugs is worthy? Is this what you do in Israel when
you study people?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: In Israel I didn't get to investigate in
hotels for the most part, but.
Q: That's right. Handcuffed the whole interrogation is not.
A: First of all it is not my authority to handcuff or not handcuff him, secondly,
in some cases then yes a person will be handcuffed the entire interrogation if
necessary.
Q: Okay.
A: This isn't the first time I've interrogated someone in handcuffs.
Q: The shirt is left, leave the underwear.
A: I'm not done.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I say, this is not the first time I have
interrogated someone who was handcuffed throughout the interrogation, sometimes it
should.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. With a t-shirt in the cold is it worthy? Forget underwear, a
t-shirt?
A: I'm not responsible for what he was wearing as soon as we entered the room, he
went up to bed dressed like that, as soon as he got up, he was handcuffed, put in a
chair, as soon as he drew my attention to his attire and was lying to him
immediately he got dressed.
Q. Don't you think you have an active duty as the person conducting and responsible
for the investigation to ensure that the person in front of you is dressed while
you ask the questions?
A: I think I have a duty.
Q. That could affect his life?
A: I think I have not only a legal obligation but also a moral obligation and as
soon as it was flooded it was immediately corrected regardless of the law but on a
moral level, even before the legal issue.
Q. Could it be that you weren't focused? I mean, you were so focused on the
questions and answers on what you wanted to get out of him, you didn't see what was
called with your eyes, you didn't see what was happening in front of you, a bang on
the table, you were 10 centimeters away from him and drugs you didn't see, he was
naked with underwear, you didn't see, no glasses, you didn't notice, you were so
focused on what you wanted to get out of him that you didn't see the person in
front of you.
A: It's not related at all, the fact that there's a bang on the table, not a bang
on the table, I can say it's not nice, I haven't seen, you can say whatever you
want, the bottom line is not that I came with a forensic bag to catch this bong
it's irrelevant, I also don't think I would have caught it if I saw it there, so I
didn't pay attention to it because it's really irrelevant whether there's a bang on
the table or no bang on the table.
Q: You don't have any authority at all to catch him in Ukraine, do you?
A: Okay, I didn't address authority right now, I just addressed the issue of
attention, it's irrelevant to have a bang on the table.
Q: Look, it's possible that in the unfilmed scene between the time the Ukrainians
enter the room and when you turn on the camera, you ask him where his cell phone
is?
A: No, I don't think I've tried, I always try to make everything happen, not to
talk at all until the moment I first warn and then ask the questions, so it doesn't
make sense to me.
Q: You watched the investigation from beginning to end, right?
A: Yes.
Q. You saw that at one point he was asked, 'Amos, where's your phone?'
Q: I'm telling you no.
A: Okay.
Q: Could it be that at first you or any of the Israelis tried to force open the
phone with facial recognition to put it in front of his face? Could it be? Try to
remember for a moment.
A: I don't remember anything like that.
Q: Who grabbed his phone? At some point in the interrogation, you're asking him to
open it, right?
A: I guess so, I think so.
Q: I'm telling you yes, the computer too.
A: Okay.
Q. I don't see anyone asking him, 'Where's the phone?', taking, asking.
A: It might have been on the table.
Q: I'm telling you that one of the Israelis right in between entering your room and
turning on the camera asks him where the phone is? Taking the phone and quickly
trying to put it in front of his face.
A: It doesn't make sense to me what you are.
Q: For it to open.
A: It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying because I am.
Q: Do you deny that?
A: I reject it, I'll tell you why, too, because I'm the first to enter and after
what we saw in the video I also understand that Snir and Sergey.
Q: Yes.
A. They came in afterwards so it didn't make sense for any of the Israelis to ask
him that.
Q: Okay. Let's see.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I see him already in a starting position, I understand that he
wants to.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, I'm referring you, let's see this, Beilin, at 100 in the
first file in 15 and 13 minutes 514, we're talking about the transcript in my
opinion it's Tu, page 11, line 27, yes, that's the right place, let's screen
starting at 15, 15 minutes. It's from 003. 10.39 So take more, it's 5 minutes. No
problem, put.
(Playing video).
Stop for a second. He asks you now a question that also indicates a
misunderstanding of the situation, he asks you if you came to take him to Israel,
why don't you answer him?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I answered him.
Q: No.
A. You can hear again, I said, 'It doesn't work that way.'
Q: Sounds again, 'It doesn't work that way' is an answer?
A: Yes. That's an answer.
Q. Yes, you came to take him to Israel, you didn't come to take him to Israel.
A: That's an answer.
Q: Okay. Every time he asks you something substantive, I've already shown you about
understanding the situation, you don't give him a direct answer, he asks you if
it's the Ukrainian police? You tell him, 'That's a tough question.'
A: I don't know who he was referring to, if he was referring to the Ukrainian
policeman or Sergei.
Q. Don't interrupt me, Ran, don't interrupt me, listen to me, please, listen to me,
please, don't interrupt me. You tell him, he asks you is it the Ukrainian police?
"It's a difficult question," he asks you, "Did you come to take me to Israel?" you
tell him, "It doesn't work that way," why don't you answer him, "Yes, no?" Why
doesn't it work that way? I don't understand anything about it, I'm also here after
sitting at night, I'm dressed, with glasses, no bang on the table, yes, why don't
you answer him, you're the authority, you're interrogating him, it's not trivial
that people jump on you at night in Ukraine and interrogate you like that, why not
understand the situation itself? You're also supposed to tell him, by the way,
you're supposed to let the Ukrainians know that they'll explain to him, 'You're
under arrest for extradition, Israel asked to interrogate you,' a person has to
understand what's going on, what are you saying?
A: First of all I told him that it doesn't work that way, another thing I think, I
don't know if now or later in the conversation, we have a conversation about
whether or not he will be extradited, when he will be extradited and so on.
Q: At the end, at the end.
A: I don't remember at what stage of the investigation, but it exists.
Q: After he's already come and pour.
A: What is relevant at all, pouring, not pouring?
Q: Very relevant.
A. Both at that point and after that, he spoke.
Q: Sir.
A: And I gave the answer as I saw fit to give the answer. If I had any interest in
not answering him, I wouldn't answer him later.
Q: Ran, Amos Silver during interrogations in Israel was silent 95% of the time,
except that he had to answer you about something, both to you and to Shoshan.
A: Wrong.
Q: Wrong?
A: Wrong. All his interrogations he talked to me.
Q: All your interrogations he talked to you?
A: Yes.
Q. Didn't he maintain his right to remain silent?
A: No.
Q: Are you sure of what you're saying?
A: 100%.
Q: Very interesting. To June you said in the beginning, everything was submitted to
the judges, yes, to June you said in the beginning, 'In the interrogation in
Ukraine he spoke, in the questioning he spoke, in the interrogations he was
silent.'
A: You separate the questioning from the interrogations.
Q: Yes, we do separate.
A: As far as I'm concerned, this is an investigation for all intents and purposes.
Q: We'll talk about it tomorrow.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But the facts are facts, we have it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right. So let's not be semantic, let's do this, I make a
separation.
Hon. S. Brody: Let's ask what you actually want from him in this context? Please.
Attorney Bar Oz: With Madam's permission, I make a distinction between an
interrogation where you sit with a person in an interrogation room, tell him, 'I'm
interrogating you under warning,' and a situation in which you go with him to Abu
Kabir and you have a recording device, he doesn't know he's under interrogation or
you go downstairs with him to smoke a cigarette and you tell him, yes, everything
is documented, but he doesn't know he's under interrogation.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: That's a separation you make.
Q: Yes.
A: That separation doesn't exist.
Q: That's the separation I make.
A: But as far as the researcher is concerned, it's a separation that doesn't exist,
you're now inventing a separation.
Q: Please note, now that I'm interrogating you, it's questioning and when you're
sitting in the interrogation room, it's an interrogation.
A: It's a separation that you make.
Q: A separation that I do.
A: It's not a correct separation but.
Q: I do it. Beauty.
A: But it's not a proper separation.
Q: No problem. Wrong. All good. Now, in the 14 investigations that Amos had, and
there are also the 2 questionings that you also call interrogations, sorry, 3, so
there are here let's say 14 investigations, 3 questioning according to your system,
investigations according to you and the investigation in Ukraine, in Ukraine he
does not maintain the right to remain silent, he speaks, right?
A: That's right.
Q. In your questioning with him, he doesn't maintain his right to remain silent,
does he?
A. Where it is convenient for him, there are places where he maintains his right to
remain silent.
Q: Great. In the interrogations themselves that he sits and he knows that he is
under investigation and he consults with a lawyer beforehand, does he maintain his
right to remain silent?
A. Even when I spoke to him, it was after he was warned, after he was in the
interrogation room, and after he consulted with a lawyer.
Q: Are you going there again?
A: Listen, me, you're making a separation.
Q: No, no, I'm not giving up on you.
A: No, you're wrong, you make a distinction between questioning and interrogation
and you say that in my opinion it's an interrogation, it's not in my opinion,
that's how the procedure is.
Q: Dear Ran, Dear Ran.
A: That's how the law is.
Q: Wrong.
A: That's what you are, you.
Q: Wrong.
A: I'm telling you yes.
Q: I won't argue with you, it's semantics.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, the sentence was not completed for the record, 'in my
opinion the questioning is part of the investigation.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: Great.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: It's not in my opinion, what I'm saying that
way is the crook.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, contrary to what defense counsel says.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You say, 'The questioning is an interrogation.'
A: That's right.
Attorney Bar Oz: Great. Now I'm put aside.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But factually.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The questioning/interrogations, according to you.
Hon. S. Brody: Wait, wait, but the defense attorney asks you, you said there are in
Ukraine and there are questionings, but that there were interrogations inside the
police station where he was silent?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: That they were inside the interrogation
room, all the interrogations that took place in Israel were in Lahav, even the
questioning according to him was inside Lahav, in the interrogation room, to the
best of my knowledge, he was silent.
A: In my opinion, Shoshan was the one who interrogated him, not me, and every time
I interrogated him outside the interrogation room, whether it was outside, whether
it was on a trip to Abu Kabir, most of the time he cooperated except for a few
places where he maintained his right to remain silent.
Q: Not just Lily, in September you investigated him.
A: Okay.
Q: In August, Shoshan was still researching.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So he did speak.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, during interrogations.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Outside the room.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, outside.
A: Outside the interrogation room.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, he says that even inside the interrogation room, when
Fleisiger interrogated him, he was also silent.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I say, but it's clear, but when you were with him outside the
interrogation room, you drove or something talked.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now, do you know the difference between the 4 times he did talk to
you about Ukraine and 3 other questionings and all 14 other interrogations of you
and Shoshan? Do you know the difference?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, what's the difference?
Q: Very simple, in the videotaped interrogations, which are documented, you adhere
to the rights properly, let him consult with a lawyer, do an investigation by the
book and he is aware that he is under investigation, both in Ukraine and in the
questioning. Amos is not aware that he is under investigation and you take
advantage of it and you actually maybe when he entered the blade you warned him,
but he does not know in the questioning that it is being recorded and that you, as
far as you are concerned, are actually an interrogation for all intents and
purposes, He doesn't know that because you also talk to him about philosophical,
ideological things, not things that are talked about in interrogations.
A: So I don't agree with you because the fact is that even in interrogations
outside the interrogation room, when he had questions that he was not comfortable
answering, he said explicitly, 'I reserve the right to remain silent,' and even
more so when he asked, when I asked him a question on one occasion and he asked if
it was documented, what would he answer me? So I told him, as I told you at the
beginning, 'Everything between us is documented' and then he chose not to answer, I
mean, as far as I'm concerned, I did everything by the book and I also brought to
his attention that everything is documented and I brought to his attention that he
is under investigation, if I wanted to, I could also lie to him and I would still
face the law, so there is no problem, on the contrary, I raised my head and told
the truth every time he asked about the documentation.
Q: Please note, from the beginning I didn't say you didn't tell the truth, you're
not one of the deceitful cops, there are some, you're not, really not, you're an
honest man.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You can skip the overall grade.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, no, there were also those standing here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Enough, enough, enough.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And they lied in this courtroom, we know that, it's not something
new.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no, we don't know anything.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But you in a sophisticated and progressive way, not in a barbaric
way, you confuse him or you don't tell him, you are like I said and I used this
phrase, like you fraudulently brought him to Ukraine to a foreign country under the
temptation that he is forbidden, in my opinion, in disguised extradition, so you
denied him the right to consult in an investigation in Ukraine and that is what we
just talked about. But we were on the phone before. We'll just finish the phone
thing before we move on to consultation.
Let's stop. Look, I don't see Ukrainians in the room at this point and Sergey
turns to you and reminds you you don't want to start with the phone, do you?
Q: Sergei's phone is under his control at this point.
A: I don't know.
Q. You don't know, you ask him to open the phone.
A. I asked him if he was willing to open the phone.
Q. Yes, do you know where his phone is at this point?
A: No, I guess he's somewhere in the room or on the table or next to the bed maybe.
Q: Do you have the authority to ask a person to open evidence abroad? If he said
yes, do you have the authority for that? What did they tell you in the briefing
about this?
A: I don't remember, I know that everything caught with him is supposed to come
normally through a request for legal help.
Q: That's right.
A: I don't remember about opening the phone.
Q: That's right, you even know Yuval Kaplinsky, director of the International
Department, that he signs the temporary detention request as part of the request
for legal aid between countries, I'll tell you exactly what he writes I have it
translated, he says, 'In accordance with articles 21A and 21B of the Convention, we
ask the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities to remove the phones and laptops as
well as any other portable digital devices found in Silver's possession at the time
of arrest and to hand over to the Israeli law enforcement authorities upon Silver's
extradition to Israel.' I want to know where do you have the authority to ask him
to open evidence that even the prosecution is asking Ukraine to give it only for
him to be extradited?
A: First of all, it doesn't conflict because I didn't grab the phone and take it
with me to Israel.
Q: You speak fast.
A: It doesn't conflict, I didn't take the phone with me to Israel.
Q: No, you want to do something with it.
A: Regarding the authority to open.
Q. Now he says yes.
A: As for the authority to open or not to open, I don't know.
Q: So why are you asking if you don't know?
A: I didn't think about it, I don't know.
Q: You haven't thought about it.
A: The bottom line is that he didn't open it, so it's irrelevant.
Q: Is it irrelevant if he didn't open?
A: The bottom line is that in the end he didn't open.
Q: Don't you interrogate people for probationary criminal offenses? No, really,
what you're doing is an action that's illegal, you're not allowed to do that.
ATTORNEY ROM: I oppose, I oppose.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Oppose. It was really quiet from that side today.
Attorney Rom: First of all, I disagree with my colleague on the grounds that the
action is illegal, secondly, I think that there is an exaggeration here in an
attempt to intimidate the witness that he is doing things.
Attorney Bar-Oz: A terrifying move?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Wait, before the witness came out, I didn't.
ATTORNEY ROM: The witness.
Hon. Barak Nevo: There is no need for the witness to come out and the objection,
that's it, he finished the question, the witness has already answered him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Everything is fine, let's move forward.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He also knows how to get along.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Exactly, Ran knows.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He really knows how to get along.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm not trying to intimidate you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, he knows how to answer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I also can't even if I want to, but okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet, quiet, quiet.
Attorney Rom: To tell him that he is doing something illegal and that it is an
offense.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So he answered, he answered.
ATTORNEY ROM: And that's a disgrace.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Is this for a terrifying procedure?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, when you're investigating, tell the witness.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So you terrorized Silver.
Attorney Rom: 'You're not investigating on experience' In my view, it's a kind of
insinuation that he committed some kind of offense that he should be investigated
for.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He really committed an offense.
ATTORNEY ROM: He did not commit any offense.
Hon. Barak Nevo: In your opinion.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He committed an offense.
(Talking together).
Hon. Barak Nevo: In your opinion, he committed an offense.
ATTORNEY ROM: You claim that he committed an offense, I think otherwise.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Attorney Rom said that in her opinion, no.
(Talking together).
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's cross-examination, isn't it?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay, so Attorney Rom objected to the claim that he committed an
offense, she doesn't think so, the objection was registered, Superintendent
Fleisiger wasn't exactly scared and we can move forward.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I don't see him being threatened, and God forbid I'm trying to
intimidate him, I've already said he's a nice guy and he's not dangerous at all.
Good. Now look, what about, say, this little matter of informed consent when you
open the phone? You are according to the laws of the State of Israel, this is also
how you tell the suspects in the country that you ask them for the phone, nicely,
so casually, Sergei reminded you, 'Would you mind opening the phone'? What about
informed consent, 'You can agree or disagree and it won't be your duty' all of
these things? You know the procedure.
Attorney Rom: No, there is no such procedure, what procedure? What is the
connection?
Attorney Bar-Oz: You know the practice, there is no procedure whose number is such
and such, but informed consent you know what it is, you know how to ask suspects
for consent.
Q: That's right. So what, did you apply it in this case?
A: No. But it should be noted that we were not at the stage, the phone was not in
my hands and was not at the stage of opening the phone, it is quite possible that I
wanted the code for the phone in order to open it in Israel.
Q: Say, if I tell you, Silver was extradited to Israel on August 16, the phone was
seized on March 12, if I tell you that I have indications both on the night of the
incident and on May 11 while he is in Ukraine that operations are being done on the
phone, that he connects to the Internet, do you have any knowledge about that?
A. From his phone while he is in custody?
Q: Silver's is occupied, yes, while he's in Ukraine in extradition custody.
A. No, maybe he was in his hands?
Q: May 11th? May 11th?
A: When was he extradited? I'm not strong on dates.
Q: August 16th, I'm coming back again.
A: No, I don't, not strong on dates.
Q: March, 12 March 19 arrested, 16 August 19 Framed in the middle We have May 11, I
tell you that there are indications that actions were made on the phone that he
connected to the Internet on May 11 and I ask you as someone who was in Ukraine and
asked him for the phone if you have any knowledge if any actions were taken in this
medium?
A: Not that I know.
Q: Not that you know, fine. Now let's see a moment at 515 in 6 and 10 minutes. We
are already in T/468T. 6 and 10 minutes is 10 seconds.
Hon. H. Brody: T/468.
Hon. S. Tamir: Is that page 4?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Wait.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just, please, drum some letter?
Hon. Barak Nevo: T/468 Which?
Hon. H.S. Brody: 16 I understand.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, it's Page 4, yes, sir.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please, we're looking.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Put a moment in 6 and 10 seconds. It's just that there's a thing
about the times here, so I'm not sure. Yes, 6 and 10 seconds, fine.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Because 25 is line 25 is 6.16. So it works out.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I don't have a line here.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, on the 25th it's 6.16.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: So it worked out.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Right, right, right. Sir is right, 6 and 10 seconds, all right.
(Playing video).
We got exactly on point, so you ask him to open the computer and you say
'neither does it', he answers you with a joke, 'I didn't just buy an Apple that's
hard to hack.'
Hon. S. Brody: Wait, wait, second, we didn't find it in the transcript, minute.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The judge found that exactly earlier.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Here, I found it.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Yes, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The judge referred me to the point.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Line 25.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Yes, yes, here. So 25.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Good. So also calculates him as above, there is no informed
consent, there is no authority, as far as he agrees, did you come with an
instruction to try to open his phones and computer?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I don't remember, but it is quite possible
that I wanted to receive the codes for the computer and phone and open them in
Israel.
Q: Open them in Israel?
A: Maybe, if we had carried out the operation then there would have been something
to talk about, but you make assumptions.
Q: No, but you don't ask him what the codes are? You tell him, 'You're ready to
open both the computer and the phone.'
A: Okay, I want to see maybe that it opens, I don't know, it's a discount.
Q: 100%. Ok. We move from this issue of physical conditions, we made an asterisk on
the phone.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The Right to Consult.
Adv. Bar-Oz: On the issue of the right to consult. You also told us in the main
interrogation to my colleague and me that you entrusted his rights several times,
right?
Q: And you suggested that he consult an attorney, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. And he explicitly refused?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. Let's start the first file 002 514 T/468. Now we have already said earlier
that according to you, the law that applies in this room is the law of the State of
Israel, according to which we examine the legality of the action, right? You said.
A: I said that there is, no, I said that there is a combination of Ukrainian law
and that of the State of Israel.
Q: What combination? At what level? 50, 50? 75 Ukraine, 25 Israel? What
combination?
A: Again I'm not familiar with the legal issue, but I guess, I'm assuming that both
should apply.
Q: Let's say I claim that you violated his right to counsel, but in Ukraine we have
already seen that there is also the right to have an attorney present, so if we say
you violated his right to be present.
A: I think that in this case Ukrainian law prevails.
Q: Okay.
A: But I'm not 100% sure, I'm less familiar.
Q: Okay. Whether we are in Ukraine according to Ukrainian law or Israeli law, I
think we can agree that the right to consult exists before the two laws, according
to what I showed you in the previous discussion.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He doesn't dispute that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Not disagreed. Beauty. I also think we can agree that this may be
the most important right that a detainee has in a criminal proceeding, do you agree
with me?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Everything is important.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: There is also, exactly, the right to remain
silent and also an important right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There are many important things.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The right to remain silent is also important, you are 100% right.
You, as the investigator we said, were not just sent to Ukraine, you were the most
veteran cyber investigator, your superiors are aware of your skills, your
abilities, they are also aware of the potential subject, his weak points, his
strengths and choose you, you as a veteran investigator are important to you when
you are investigating in Israel a regular investigation, it is important for you to
understand that the interrogee understood his rights?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: Absolutely.
Q: And you make sure of that.
A: That's right.
Q: In Israel.
A: Here, too.
Q: Wait, let's see.
A: See, we've seen already.
Q: Let's see. Now, it is also important for you to understand that your interrogee
understands this on a substantive level as well, that is, if you are investigating
just a situation it is say an IPS who was arrested in a shocking rape case, breaks
into a lady's house and commits a rape offense against her when the children are at
home and he is now being interrogated for the first time, he does not understand a
word of Hebrew, you will make sure that there will be an interpreter in the room
who will explain to him that he can consult with a lawyer, Right?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. When he waives this right, it's also important to you that he give it up
with a full understanding of all the rights and obligations that stand, right? As a
decent researcher. Not just.
A: I don't understand what you just said, what is it important to you that he
understands the full right? I make sure that the person sitting in front of me
understands what I'm talking to.
Q: Beautiful. Don't just do a V about 'I knew about the right to counsel, I knew
about the right to remain silent,' that he understands that.
A: What is doing V? I inform a person what his rights are, suspect what his rights
are, ask if he has understood and move on, if I have any fear for some reason
because of language, because of an intellectual level, because of him.
Q: Exactly.
A. Such a thing he didn't understand, then.
Q: Here's a good example, a person who suffers from human resources.
A: From what?
Q: Intellectual developmental limitations, our abbreviation is Moses, it's new, a
person who suffers from intellectual developmental disabilities according to the
retardation, okay? It's already us in another era, when you sit across from him
during an interrogation and you tell him, 'You have the right to consult with a
lawyer,' and he stares at you and you have a fear that he doesn't understand what
you're telling him, then you'll make sure to bring in a special investigator and
examine him before you interrogate him, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. 100%. And we are artists in Ukraine but Silver deserves all the rights
like in the investigation in Israel, you also warn him according to the version of
the country, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Beautiful. Ok. Now we talked about it, I remind you in the previous discussion
already, that actually what we call a warning consists of several components, first
of all familiarity, 'I am a police officer', you tell him who you are, 'I warn
you', to put it negatively, 'warn you that what you say can be used against you',
can, will not be used but can be used, right?
A: That's right.
Q: 'You have the right to consult with an attorney, you have the right to remain
silent,' 2 rights, right?
A: That's right.
Q: And the public defender's office, which is something that was added later and
you tell him that too, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Beautiful. Let's see this first segment at the very beginning of the
investigation, I suggest that we actually watch the first 2 minutes in sequence and
I project to the witness T/468T Page 1 the first 2 minutes.
(Playing video).
Let's stop. Say, from what you see here, yes, Amos Silver wants to consult an
attorney or not?
A: No.
Q: Don't want to?
A: No.
Q. He doesn't want to, he explicitly waives his right to counsel?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes?
A: I see it now even after we talked about it last time and I get stronger with the
feeling that the warning was read properly, explained properly, the rights were
explained properly, he was also told what he wanted, more than that not only is he
not interested in consulting a lawyer right now, I have to stop him all the time
before he speaks and continue to read to him his rights and make sure he understood
them again and again.
Q: Say, are you serious about what you're saying?
A: I'm very serious.
Q: I'm so far really, you know.
A: I'm very serious.
Q: I appreciated your answers, do you hear what's coming out of your mouth?
A: I hear absolutely.
Q. Look, an interrogee is sitting across from you, sir, yes, given that you're
interrogating him without authority with appalling physical conditions and saying,
'I want to consult with a lawyer from the consulate,' he asks you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: According to you.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: He asks.
Attorney Bar Oz: 'Can I consult with a lawyer from the consulate?' You say 'no' to
him, you don't let him.
A: No, that's not what I said.
Q: Sir, listen to me, you are not giving him any alternative option.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, but he wants to answer you, second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But I haven't finished the question yet.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let him. No, but you slammed something, he says, 'That's not
true.'
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: You're just saying something that we just saw
isn't true and you're just saying something that's not true.
Hon. H.S. Brody: As for me, wait, answer a second.
A. He asked about me, he said.
Hon. S. Brody: Attorney Bar-Oz, second, we hear Amos say, 'Is it possible to
consult with an attorney from the American consulate?'
A: I'm not sure, I can check, that's what I said.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I think that's an accurate quote.
Hon. H.S. Brody: "If I have that possibility," we heard him say it. Wait, right
away the judge, here, the judge found it, sorry, T/468T in the transcript of page
2.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Line 4.
Hon. S. Brody: Ran asks you, Ran you ask, "Did you understand your rights?" and
then Amos says, "I understood your rights, can I consult with a lawyer from the
American consulate?" Amos: Okay" Vern says "your choice, it's totally your right,
listen, we've seen your videos, but oh know the face" and so on and so forth.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, now.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This goes a little further than the explanation of rights.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, there is no explanation, 'It's your rights completely, but
we've seen the videos.'
Hon. H.S. Brody: But as for the subject of what he asked, I refreshed your memory
here, we've seen it several times. Yes. So maybe that's what you'll comment on at
this point.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Where does he waive the right to consult with an attorney?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: So as for what he is.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, a second, let him, he'll answer you.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Please.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT FLEISIGER: Basically what the lawyer claims is that I
told him he couldn't, I say that's not true, I didn't claim that he couldn't.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I didn't argue that.
A: Because. You argued this a moment ago.
Q: No, I didn't claim that.
A: And what I said, what I said is that I don't know about the consulate in terms
of its rights, it has the rights that it deserves, that it can also consult with an
attorney, during the whole warning from the beginning and another end including the
rights and including that brief dialogue I repeat that I insist on finishing his
reading of his rights and making sure that he understood them while trying to say
once, "Two years ago I founded," once "I waited to see you," and so on and so
forth, and I ignore these statements in order to finish reading the rights and
understanding that he understood us.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: And that's why I reject that statement.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean, you wanted to explain first and then get the response.
A: Totally.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second. So anyway, what Attorney Bar Oz asks, so you
explained the rights to him, he interrupted you, you say in a number of his
statements, but what about the right to consult in the end?
A. It was given to him completely and afterwards I mean how many times it was given
to him and also the next times, sorry and also the next times I ask him if he
wants.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But in Ukraine, in what way did you perhaps intend to give him the
right to consult? How was this supposed to be helped by the conditions in which it
was?
A: If I remember correctly it was supposed to be by phone, but I don't remember for
sure.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Phone with whom? With whom?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, don't be mad at him.
Attorney Bar Oz: I'm angry.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What?
Attorney Bar Oz: I'm angry.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, ask him, you don't have to be angry.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He's an honest man, but he severely violated his rights here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, but you don't have to do it in that tone, okay, he
answers you.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We will continue, there are more to come, yes, but let's continue
with this.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He answers you. Everything he replies, he didn't run away from
anything.
Hon. S. Brody: Maybe you'll just explain it to us because it's a question, you're
in conditions in a foreign country in a room and you say that regarding his request
to the consulate you didn't see at that moment how to implement it, by the way I
open a moment, it's not a parenthesis, but nevertheless a question, ahead of the
briefing and arrival in Ukraine, this issue of the right to consult was raised
while you were still in Israel and you were sent on a mission?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Obviously yes.
Hon. S. Brody: Because there are some unique conditions here.
A: Obviously it came up, I don't remember.
Hon. H.S. Brody: After all, it is clear that the rights must be explained, but also
that it must be allowed to be exercised, if one asks, has it been suggested how to
do it?
A: I'm pretty sure I do, I don't remember to say for sure, I'm sorry, my memory
isn't that good, if necessary, if I remember correctly I was supposed to call
Israel and connect it to the defense attorney.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That is, if he was.
A: I think so.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If he wanted to consult.
A: I had the ways, of course, to make it possible.
Hon. Barak Nevo: We talked about this last time.
Hon. Barak Nevo: They talked about former attorney Tsvetkov.
Attorney Bar Oz: I gave the opposite example.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That when the police.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But he sharpens it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: She really intends to exercise her right She notifies her defense
attorney in advance and I gave an example that the day before he was extradited,
Attorney Kati Tsvetkov called her, she was ready, I gave as an example the
operations of an agent.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: You also said, you asked in advance whether they knew in advance
that his rights were being violated? I mean you researched.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, right. Now.
ATTORNEY ROM: Maybe they should have notified the defense attorney in advance of
the break-in.
Attorney Bar-Oz: If you had been to the previous hearing, you would have known that
there is a tacit agreement between Lahav and her defense attorney, when there is a
large case, they are notified a day in advance and the defense is prepared in
advance.
ATTORNEY ROM: About a hacker?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, on a hack, yes.
Attorney Beilin: They don't say who they're arresting, they say, 'Prepare 10
lawyers for counseling.'
Attorney Bar Oz: About hacking. Right.
(Talking together).
How do you think there are 30 lawyers ready?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Back bench, you got a little too active after the break.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Good. Look, the Honourable the Judge asked you a correct question
that I also touched on a little bit about how you were physically supposed to
exercise this right now.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So he really started saying and was interrupted.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So you say, first of all, you said, and Judge Barak Nevo also
commented, it's true that we talked about this about Attorney Kati Tsvetkov, who
was supposed to contact Haaretz by phone.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: If I remember correctly, he was supposed to
contact Haaretz by phone in order to allow the right to consult.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You mean by telephone?
A: Yes.
Adv. Bar-Oz: The telephone contact.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Was this telephone contact with this attorney supposed to be with
some private attorney whose name he would give or with the public defender's
office?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: If he has a private attorney like any case
then he consults with his private attorney and if he doesn't have and he asks, then
if he is eligible.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It means more if he doesn't have any.
A: So if he's eligible for the public defender's office.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To the public defender's office, if he has then the problem is not
a problem.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, right. Now, when he asks you, 'Can I consult with an
attorney?' and adds, 'From the U.S. consulate,' your answer is, 'I don't know if
from the consulate, I know you have the right to consult with an attorney.'
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's what he said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's break it down. "I don't know if you have the right to
consult with a lawyer from the consulate," I showed you clauses in the law that say
yes there is a right, they are submitted.
ATTORNEY HADAD: What?
Adv. Bar Oz: N/158, 159.
ATTORNEY HADAD: I object. The question is misleading.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Why?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, Nun?
Attorney Haddad: I don't see, my colleague has not shown any provision of the law,
that there is such a thing as a lawyer from the consulate who can be consulted, are
there any lawyers at the consulate who can be consulted?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Please. No, but the consulate organizes.
Attorney Haddad: Does the consulate hold lawyers? I don't know that there is such a
thing at all.
Attorney Bar Oz: Here.
Attorney Beilin: Are you familiar with Ukrainian law?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's see.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The defendant also threw it into the air.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes, this is some kind of invention of the accused.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I didn't say invention.
Attorney Bar-Oz: An invention?
Hon. H.S. Brody: He tried to ask, because he is an American citizen.
Attorney Beilin: This is an invention of the State Prosecutor's Office.
Attorney Bar-Oz: All this testimony is an invention, the fact that you are
attesting to things in Ukraine.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, enough, enough.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's an invention.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no, no.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do me a favor and sit quietly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There's no point, just a second.
ATTORNEY HADAD: I didn't mean to say that, the defendant's thought might be that
there might be such a thing.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we say, he himself tried to find out, it's not like he sat down
and checked.
Attorney Haddad: Yes, right, right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The provisions of the law.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No legal opinions were made here, that's clear.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And it's such a shame.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, they need to check before.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, but the defendant asked, he inquired, that's what he
asked and that's what he got an answer to.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, but what is our argument, Your Honor.
Recorder: You're without a microphone.
Attorney Beilin: That the police did not check.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, but it's not in the debate either, but he said how he
meant to exercise.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I refer my colleague to section 581.
Adv. Haddad: 581.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Rights of a person whose extradition is requested.
Attorney Haddad: What subsection?
Adv. Bar Oz: 581, 8.3, 581, 2.
Hon. H.S. Brody: 581?
Attorney Haddad: Wait, what did you say?
Adv. Bar Oz: 8.3, 2.
Adv. Haddad: (English).
Hon. H.S. Brody: 8.2.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: (English).
ATTORNEY ROM: That doesn't mean consulate.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, it's about the right at all.
ATTORNEY ROM: Defense counsel said consulate.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This matter was brought before us. Ok.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Also about the consulate. No problem.
Attorney Haddad: Where?
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, so the defendant asked and he answered.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But anyway you're saying you don't know, are you saying that to
the Ukrainians?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No.
Q: Ukrainians, do you know they heard that?
A. I have no certainty that they heard it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He said about everything that he didn't know what they heard and
what they didn't.
Attorney Bar-Oz: They also don't understand it even if they did. So you basically
decide that he has no right to consult with the consulate.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: False.
Q. I am now, deciding, you say, 'I don't know.'
A: That's not true.
Q: You say, 'I don't know.'
A: I say, 'I don't know, but you also have counseling rights for a defense
attorney, it's not a 'no,' it means 'I can check.'
Q: Where did you say a defense attorney here?
A: Not from the defense attorney, I don't remember exactly the words I used, if you
bring me to see it I can be precise in the words I say.
Q: Take the transcript, take, please. Come refer me, you are on page 2, he asks for
advice from a lawyer from the consulate, come refer me where do you tell him where
do you give him the alternative?
A: "I don't know if from the consulate, I know that you have the right to consult
with a lawyer."
Q. Practically, the person sits in handcuffs in front of you and you ask him
questions, he wants a lawyer, he tells you, so where if not from the consulate?
A: No.
Q: Where?
A: Second.
Q: "You have a Ukrainian lawyer, do you want to call someone in Israel? Do you want
a defense attorney?' You have no active obligation Again you technically told him
that he has the right to consult, but you don't do anything that he does ask for
advice.
A: You assume he's asking for advice, I don't agree with you.
Q: What does it assume? "Can I consult a lawyer from the consulate?"
A: I disagree with you. I'm in the middle of a sentence. I don't agree with you
that this question is a consultation request, moreover, I also for the second time,
I didn't finish, the next times he also suggested then he rejected it and from this
I can conclude all the more so that I am right in what I am saying here. Because
the fact is that 3 times he was asked and he said he didn't want to, twice
explicitly and once here that he just kept talking.
Q: Isn't that an explicit form here? Isn't that an explicit form?
A: Here from the circumstances it is understood that it is not.
Q: From the circumstances, then it changes because in the previous discussion you
explicitly said, '3 times he gave up.'
A: That's right.
Q: So this time too.
A: That's right, I'm still standing on it.
(Talking together).
I still say about it.
Q: I'm telling you that he asks to consult with an attorney.
A: I disagree with you.
Q: And you won't say cheating, it's very close to that, pulling his tongue, 'We've
seen your videos, we already know, so what difference does it make whether you
consult or not, talk.'
A: That's not what it says.
Q: That's exactly what you're saying.
A: It's not what, not only is it not what was said.
Q: Exactly.
A: Not only is that not what was said there.
Q: Let's see the passage again, Beilin.
A: Not only is it not what is said there, second, I am in the middle of a sentence,
not only is it not what is said there, but you can see throughout the warning and
the reading of rights that I am stopping him from speaking and here too the same
thing.
Q. That's not true, you don't stop him from talking, you pull him to talk.
A: Wrong, quite the opposite.
Q: You are now starting to talk uninterested.
A: You can see it again and see.
Q: The whole transcript with the judges, where do you give him his right as an
investigator?
A: We saw it, we saw it a moment ago, you can see it again 8 times.
Q: Let's see it again.
(Talking together).
Next, let's see it from scratch, we'll see it 200 times too. Look at how many
things Nitzan does during the discussion. Good for him really. Please, from
scratch. You know what, right, just stop me when he explicitly waives his right to
a lawyer. Tell me when to stop.
A: Please stop.
Q: Yes.
A: You asked me to arrest you, it can already be counted, the first time he starts
talking and I stop him from continuing because it's important for me to read the
rights first, keep going.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: So that was the concession?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT FLEISIGER: I didn't say it was a concession here, it
was you who said, go on, please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You speak quickly and I didn't understand.
A: What's not clear?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He said that it was the first time Amos had started talking and
that he was stopping him so that he could continue to read to him his rights in
full.
A. It's contrary to what you say that I pull him in things the other way around, I
stop him from talking.
Attorney Bar Oz: Dear Ran.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: So that things will be legal.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet.
A: And correct. Project it again.
Attorney Bar Oz: Ran, Ran, look.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Continuing?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I want to answer a second.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second. And to keep warning him, yes?
Attorney Bar-Oz: He tells you, 'I've been waiting to meet you for a long time.'
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYSIGER: Can you bring me the transcript just to have
it in front of me? It's a little hard for me like that.
Q: Let the prosecution give you a copy, I'm not slamming you, you're referring it,
it's not me giving you.
ATTORNEY HADDAD: First.
Attorney Bar-Oz: First. T.O. "Ahlen, Ahlen, I've been waiting to meet you for a
long time", here you stop him from what? From saying incriminating things, from an
interrogation without a lawyer? What are you stopping him from? He tells you
something, you try to mark a V on the rights, that's why you also say it in 53
seconds, out of which 39 is just the suspicions and another 11 seconds is his
rights, as opposed to 5 and a half minutes in America and what do you stop him?
What are you helping him with here?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Focus the question because you're saying
here, you're comparing the time and the 39 seconds and the statement about America,
so focus the question, you're saying something very.
Q. Where do you stop him from incriminating himself? You're not helping him here.
A: So here I answer.
Q. He's all saying, "I've been waiting to meet you for a long time," it has nothing
to do with the content.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He did not say that he was stopping him from incriminating
himself, he said that he was stopping from speaking so that he could complete all
the warning about all rights.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: To complete the cover.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: More than that.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Beilin, superfluous.
Attorney Haddad: There is no room.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, Ran.
Hon. Barak Nevo: It's good that you don't have a microphone.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He said, 'Complete the cover.'
Hon. Barak Nevo: I heard what he said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let it be on the record.
Hon. Barak Nevo: We don't want to.
Attorney Haddad: The court says there is no room for these things.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay, enough.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I say it's a cover-up.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Don't use this language.
Attorney Beilin: That's our position, there are no rights in practice.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's our argument.
Attorney Bar-Oz: In practice, he did not consult with an attorney.
(Talking together).
Hon. Barak Nevo: But you will argue your arguments in the summaries, not to repeat
to the witness all the time that it is a cover-up and other inappropriate
expressions.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, to my friend I answered.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What?
Attorney Bar-Oz: I didn't say my colleague said. Okay, let's move on, yes. Do you
want to see it again?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, we will continue in a moment to see the
additional allegations.
Q: Yes.
A: But what I'm saying is that I stopped him in order to complete the reading of
the rights and also out of fear, God forbid, that he would say something
incriminating before I finished the rights, according to you, if I acted in such a
malicious way I would have let him continue talking, I wouldn't have stopped me, I
wouldn't have asked him questions maybe, but I could have kept letting him talk and
I didn't.
Q: Look, Ren, you're smart and sophisticated enough to know that you owe it to the
camera and the protocol to have the warning properly, here it is, now, you really
speak fast to your credit It will be said now that I'm with you for 3 days now you
have this thing all of a sudden when you're a little, I won't say excited, but you
start talking fast, I also had a hard time understanding you in some situations
here, And here when you told him the rights, you shot them, let's hear it again,
11 seconds all the rights, the consultation, all these things, but you want to say
it so that it will be recorded, so that it will be recorded, not so that he will
really understand, thickening when he tries to implement you reject him and do not
give him an alternative, Come tell me, come tell me, I keep showing it.
A: Is there a question at the end? Because I want to respond to what you said.
Q: Yes, yes. Where are you where consciously he waives his right to an attorney.
A: Okay.
Q: Let's continue.
A: Wait, I want to respond to what you said.
Q: Please.
A: You accuse me of acting properly, that's what you're actually claiming.
Q: That I am?
A. You accuse me of acting properly and you say, you interpret that I acted
properly because I know there is a camera.
Q: Okay. So I'll clarify. You acted improperly, you deprived him in practice of
temptation and carried out the right to consult with an attorney.
Hon. Hashem Barak Nevo: The Shah.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: The Shah.
Attorney Bar Oz: The Shah. Evgeny.
Hon. Barak Nevo: He has a note, you want me to put it for you too.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And again the paper did record things, in practice you used the
fact that you know that Silver is saying things, showing videos, not afraid of the
law enforcement authorities and waving his right to consult, by passing on the
subject, you don't come and say that he wants to consult with the consulate, 'the
alternative is' A, B, C, and it is your duty to do that.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: He asked about an attorney what, excuse me,
he asked about a lawyer from the consulate and I told him that I would check for a
moment, that I could check, what did I say?
Q: Have you checked it?
A: That I can check, I said, sorry wait, minute, minute.
Q: You said, 'I don't know.'
A: Wait, I said, 'I don't know if from the consulate, I know you have the right to
consult with a lawyer,' and then we continued.
Q: That's right. Have you checked it? I asked you a significant question, we're
here arguing about this and we're lawyers.
A: No, I didn't check, if he had said, if he had told me, 'I want to consult with a
lawyer from the consulate,' I would have checked, the same goes for me, by the way,
I didn't call the lawyer either, if he told me, 'I want to consult with an
attorney,' I would have called.
Q: Look, did you say you even found the consulate?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you want to refer?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes. Section 42.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: 3 Subsection. Sorry no 3.
ATTORNEY HADAD: What section? What section?
Adv. Beilin: 2, 6.
ATTORNEY HADAD: What section?
Adv. Bar Oz: 42, 2, 6.
The Honorable Barak Nevo: 42, 2, 6.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, no, without the 2, sorry I'm correcting this 42.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Subsection 6.
Attorney Haddad: 42 Subsection 6?
Adv. Beilin: Subsection 6 (English).
ATTORNEY ROM: Okay, what does this have to do with this investigation?
ATTORNEY HADAD: And he has the right to meet a representative of the consulate, not
an attorney.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Not an attorney.
Adv. Haddad: Do not consult with an attorney on behalf of the consulate.
ATTORNEY ROM: Not before an interrogation.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Not before an interrogation.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He understood that he asked the consulate for a lawyer and he
said, 'Only the representative,' so that's why he didn't.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, it's not at all, it has nothing to do with the investigation at
all, it has nothing to do with the right to counsel.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm still but dwelling on the explicit, explicit, unimplied
agreement that you said he gave up, you even slammed him during interrogations in
Israel that he tells you Amos "Every lawyer I spoke to says that it was an illegal
investigation, not under authority, that my rights were violated," so you tell him
"I explicitly offered you 3 times to consult with an attorney." It's not This
transcript when he asks for Kochavi and another attorney, we'll get to it, don't
worry.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT FLEISIGER: No, no, later that he says it explicitly.
Q: Don't worry.
A: That it can indicate both the beginning and the continuation.
Q: No, no, we're still at the beginning.
A: All right.
Q: There are 3 acts in which you violate his right to counsel, we will go over all
of them.
A: 3 acts that I suggest to him, although I don't have to, but okay, keep going.
Q: You don't have to what? Offer?
A: Offer 3 times? No, I don't have to, first time enough, the one I suggested to
him after that during the interrogation over and over again, no, I don't have to.
Q. No, you didn't propose, he brings it up and you tell him, 'Yes, that's your
right, but.'
A: Wrong, you're wrong.
Q: But.
A: You're wrong.
Q: Now look. Let's get through it today even. Look, again, page 2 of the transcript
of lines 7, 8, even I take it one in advance, I won't see it again, Silver says, "I
understood the rights, can I consult with a lawyer from the U.S. consulate? A: I
don't know if from the consulate, I know you have the right to consult a lawyer but
ahh", here is the grief, the first mourner, says Silver "Okay", says Ren "Your
choice, it's your right altogether, oh, listen, we've seen your videos, but we know
your face, if you meet on the street" And then you start talking to him and he
starts answering questions, now again, As a really decent investigator and as a
decent researcher, Ran, Adam got caught up here in this issue of the consulate
after that we are.
A: In the line after that, I remind him again.
Q: Second, second, second. After that we will argue that he should have met someone
from the consulate as well, but forget it, he raises the issue of a lawyer, after
all, the right you tell him, you do not tell him 'you have the right to meet
someone from the consulate', you tell him 'you have the right to consult a lawyer'
and he tries to think in his head how difficult it is to be woken up at night,
When you're in your underwear, with a bang on the table and handcuffs behind your
back, why don't you give the alternative? You see that he wants to consult with a
lawyer, you see, he doesn't give up on it, not explicitly or even implicitly.
A: I'm giving him an alternative, it's written here in black and white.
Q: What alternative do you give him?
A: In line 4, "I don't know from a consulate, I know you have the right to consult
an attorney."
Q: Okay.
A: That's the alternative.
Q: No, sir.
A: What's not?
Q: Is it practical? He's in Ukraine now, he doesn't know anything except the
consulate and he knows if there's a public defender for Ukraine? If there is a
public defender's office in Israel, is there an attorney who can talk to him?
What's the alternative, who can he talk to? With whom?
A: I tell him that he can consult an attorney, she tells me 'I want to consult an
attorney' he would talk to an attorney, even twice more after that I told him 'you
can consult an attorney' and he says to me 'not at this stage, maybe I will want to
later', that's perfectly clear.
Q: Look, let's play the first minute again. The first minute just the warning.
A: Can you stop for a moment?
Q: Stop.
A: Can we stop?
Q. I knew you would say stop.
A: Of course I'll tell you to stop.
Q: Yes.
A. Because here the person says a sentence that even the beginning of incrimination
actually begins and I stop him, I tell him to stop him from moving on, so that he
does not continue this sentence.
Q: A great example.
A: Thank you.
Q: Look, you know Amos is proud of Tallgrass, he doesn't deny a connection to
Tallgrass, you know that.
A: I'm not sure what your claim is, did I work properly or improperly?
Q: You say 'incrimination', as far as he's concerned, it's not criminalization at
all, Telegrass wasn't criminal at all.
A: But as far as I'm concerned, I'm to work.
Q: You want to finish.
A: Wrong.
Q: Do V, sir.
A: Wrong, you say 'want to do V', I don't know where you're getting it from, bottom
line.
Q: This is what I see.
A. The bottom line is that he wants to talk, he starts talking, even starts
incriminating himself by saying 'I'm celebrating two years now' and I don't let him
keep talking, I say 'congratulations' to him in order to dismiss that statement and
move on.
Q. You say, 'Stop, I want to complete this'? You want to finish it already to start
the conversation, you see that you have ripe fruit in your hand.
A: It's funny again that you blame me for working properly.
ATTORNEY ROM: What difference does it make? Sorry, what difference does it make?
What difference does it make why he says that? He tells him the rights, what
difference does it make what the motive?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Tell me you're real? When the witness comes out, I will answer.
ATTORNEY ROM: Excuse me, your honor.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no.
ATTORNEY ROM: We're dealing with the same thing.
Attorney Bar-Oz: When the witness comes out, I will answer.
Attorney Rom: Already really, there is no trifle here, there is no trifle here,
this is the truth, my friend is trying to find all kinds of claims from the winery
and from the Goren.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, let him finish, fine.
ATTORNEY ROM: There's a bang on the table, I didn't understand what the flaw was
here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let's move forward, yes.
Attorney Rom: The right to consult was granted, really what?
Attorney Bar-Oz: When the witness comes out, I will answer.
Attorney Rom: The same subject is constantly revolved around.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, let's move forward.
ATTORNEY ROM: What difference does it make why he told him what he told him? Read
the rights to him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right. But it's possible that we've already been to this issue
and seen the video and the transcript.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So I, no, no, it's important for me to answer. Want the witness to
stay? Let the witness stay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please, please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I think it's a disgrace that a lawyer is standing in court.
ATTORNEY ROM: One more time.
ATTORNEY ROM: Too bad you're using.
Attorney Bar Oz: Disgrace.
ATTORNEY ROM: In words.
Attorney Bar Oz: Disgrace.
ATTORNEY ROM: It's a pity, it's good that your father left.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You come and you say that there is no trifle here.
ATTORNEY ROM: That he didn't live to see the way you talk.
(Talking together).
Too bad.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That this is an examination of what you have done that there is no
presumption of administrative propriety, neither for Israel nor for Ukraine.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second, the word.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So that's what you're saying, it's really a shame.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The word 'disgrace.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: I am truly ashamed that my country behaves this way.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Second. The word 'disgrace' is misplaced, please investigate
matter-of-factly.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Well, look, do you remember that you recommended to him the public
defender's office when you were in Israel?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I remember recommending to him, recommending
to him?
Q: Yes, yes. He was,
A: Maybe I said something.
Q: But you recommended the defense attorney.
A: I may have said something in praise of the public defender's office, but I
didn't recommend that he choose one attorney or another.
Q: What is not a recommendation?
A: If you show me the exact words then I can relate.
Q. I told him, 'A private defense attorney will finish you off with money.'
A: What?
Q: Public defender, don't you know that?
A: I didn't say anything like that.
Q: Let's see.
A: I really didn't say anything like that.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Is that even him?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Excuse me?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Check. Not because maybe more people spoke in Israel. See it's
you.
Attorney Bar Oz: Ran Fleisiger And it's a shame that you just say things, really.
We're talking just changed it, wait, it's now I think 470, what is 474? Here it is
questioning on the way to Abu Kabir 3532, here's just a moment. No, no, I found it.
Look, I refer to T/474B marked K-1538.
Hon. S. Brody: Wait, wait, sorry, no, we didn't hear, I didn't hear you. We just
had a moment of consultation here, I already say at a quarter to 14 the discussions
I had don't take place at a quarter to 14, so we can continue and after that we'll
take a break.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I need a break, but now.
Hon. H.S. Brody: When do you need a break?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, a few more minutes. Wet the throat a little.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So get to the point.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes. I refer you.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wet your throat?
Hon. H.S. Brody: What?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wet your throat?
Attorney Bar Oz: In water, no.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, I didn't mean anything else. I just suspect you want to
quit smoking.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No?
Attorney Bar-Oz: My mouth is dry. That's all. But it's a good idea, speaking of
which.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's a bad idea, but drink.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That's a bad idea.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I apologize. Of all the things I said today, this was a mistake.
Look, it has now been marked P/474B K-1538 22 August 2019.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, Taff? You know it's just you swallow, drum?
The Honourable H.S. Tamir: 474.
Hon. H. Brody: 474b?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, 474B.
Adv. Bar Oz: Page 2, line 28.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What's there?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's start with line 25, Amos says to you, "Yes, but what am I in
a hurry to sign a deal? I have at least a few months."
Adv. Haddad: I don't see that we have P/474B.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Checkers.
Attorney Bar-Oz: According to the old marking again, yes, you're right. It's 1538.
Adv. Beilin: T/469B.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Great, right, 5 back, it's because of the changes you made.
Hon. H. Brody: 469.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: b.
Hon. H.S. Brody: B, OK. Okay, we wrote, page 2, line 25.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, line 28. Look.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just get to that, a second.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: "Will he sentence you with money"?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, "go with the public defender's office," don't you remember
that? Do you want to see it?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes, I would love to see that.
Q: Please.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, show him a simpler look
Attorney Bar-Oz: Don't you remember telling him that a private defense attorney
would sentence him with money? Carrot it cold? At least it was true. What are you
getting into on the subject of representation?
Attorney Haddad: I think he's satisfied, by the way.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Wait, wait, second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: June. It was advanced. It's buying me and then me.
ATTORNEY HADAD: You can object to that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, exactly.
Attorney Haddad: Can you argue otherwise?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Here, yes, "He will sentence you with money."
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, the Public Defender's Office.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Public Defender's Office.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, but I'm smiling, but it's wrong, why are you representing him?
Really, Uri Kor represents him and they have a relationship of trust, why?
Hon. Barak Nevo: At this stage? When is it?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. He is already in Israel, his detention has already been
extended.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But look what's there.
Attorney Beilin: 9 days.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, he was detained for 9 days.
Hon. H.S. Brody: By the way, there is some previous conversation here that is in
the background.
Attorney Bar-Oz: On a deal?
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right. There's a lot going on here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: XXX"Listen to me, save time, save money, save."
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is legal advice here, it's called forbidden legal advice.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I don't know
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now look.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You have to see the whole picture.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I just mention that according to Ran, we are under full
investigation, they are driving to Abu Kabir.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: It's not, sorry.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. It's a conversation.
Attorney Bar Oz: Isn't this the trip to Abu Kabir?
Hon. H.S. Brody: On the way to Abu Kabir.
Attorney Bar Oz: Is it a cigarette? Excuse me. I could be wrong.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Sorry, but.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, please, Ran, that's a conversation.
A: It doesn't make sense to me, I don't talk like that, I don't get involved in
legal counsel and I also don't talk about 'cutting you with money', I was very
happy, I don't know if it's possible, to hear the audio.
Attorney Bar Oz: I think this is the CD I just received, because here there is the
blackened section, could it be?
ATTORNEY ROM: You had it and listened to it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There were 2 trips, not one, now I understand.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Adv. Bar Oz.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now we got it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Adv. Bar Oz, according to the transcript there is also speaker
number 3 there.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: They may have done something.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There's speaker number 3 and there's him.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Could be.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You have to see if it's him because he says it's not his style, so
I don't really know.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Could be. But we'll see, we've just received the CD so we have a
chance.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: If it's me, I'll be surprised myself, but
it's unlikely.
Q: So you know what.
Hon. H.S. Brody: "I will surprise myself."
Attorney Bar-Oz: You know what.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: That's not my wording style.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, a person knows if he talks like that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: At this point I accept conditionally what you say, accept
conditionally, I'll look into it.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Okay.
Q: I'll check it out.
A: Can I hear it now?
Q: Now we'll look into it. No, second.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's something of a few minutes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, if possible a few minutes, ma'am, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Are you asking for a break?
Adv. Bar Oz: 8 minutes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, frequently.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, if there is a break then a break for you to eat.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So 14 and 10?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Do you want half an hour? Because all this is at the expense of
the afternoon.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Whatever your honor will say.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, when we come back we'll pull all the way, so say how much you
need.
Hon. S. Tamir: Until 6 p.m.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, then. Such a thing was said.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Stop the recording, wait, are there any more questions?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Stop the recording because it's just that we say an hour later
they're late, so we'll say.
(pause).
Hon. H.S. Brody: Resumption of discussion after recess. Please. Superintendent
Fleisiger continues and Attorney Bar Oz cross-examines him, please, sir.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we have come now, we are in the midst of the right to consult.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I just wanted to catch up on the CD that we heard during the
break.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Possibly, after hearing this.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The CD, yes it's not he said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes, which is Evyatar Noy, I also recognize the voice.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Third party was Evyatar Noy? Because it's not written to us in the
transcript.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There was complete confusion in the transcript, there are also
things attributed to Ran and said by Amos and vice versa.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So you have to make a decision first.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That could be interesting.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait. How is this transcript marked, please?
Attorney Bar-Oz: We said it's 469B at the end of it's T/469B, it's worth checking.
<#3#>
Decision
Today we were presented with the disc of T/469A, at the time the transcript of
T/469B was submitted to us, but it turns out that after Adv. Bar Oz and Adv. Beilin
listened to the tape during the break, and after witness Ran also said that in his
opinion certain things from the transcript were not, he said them, contrary to what
was written there.
We instruct that counsel for the accuser forward the disc with the transcript to
the competent authority so that they will listen and correctly identify the voices
so that the transcript is accurate and we must not forget this.
Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.
Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd
Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge
Michael Tamir, Judge

Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, it's you, it's an exhibit of the prosecution where the
transcript is probably written, identified, a third party should also write there
and see that everything is fine, it's only a few minutes, we are once asked to rely
on it and we have a minor sentence here that has to be accurate.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now look, I do want to.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So please do it in how much? 14 days?
ATTORNEY ROM: We don't have anyone to complete it now.
Continuation of decision
Within 21 days.
Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd
Hon. H.S. Brody: There's not much to invest there. You have here.
Attorney Rom: We'll have to do that, it's not the authorized entity.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Second. Wait, wait. There are 2 interns here, one minute, there
are 2 interns here, you can take a moment if you agree that Ran will help them for
a moment, recognize his voice.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's what I want.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And he will tell us who is who and the interns for a few minutes,
will do, will be able to help.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's exactly what I didn't, I wanted to play the segment for him
and also so that he could see if it would be overlooked.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I made an arrangement without authority, but I'm sure they want to
help us, right?
Attorney Bar-Oz: I trust Rafi 100%, I already say here for the record.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I hear agreement, it's really a matter of a few minutes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let it be recorded.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And if there is assistance here and cooperation, then we will do
it.
Continuation of decision
So I will ask anyway that within 21 days it be completed.
Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd
Attorney Bar Oz: Yes, let's just hear this part of 'will sentence you with money',
I'm really almost in it Evyatar Noy, that's also what Amos tells me, but let's
listen, tell me if you recognize his voice, he accompanied you on the trip.
(Playing a recording.)
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: It sounds like Amos is continuing something
that someone said maybe, who says, 'I'll sentence you with money'? It sounds, was
it someone else?
Q: No, no, let's listen, come on.
A: Or is it busy?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Wait, I'll go back a bit.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But it's not his voice to 'cut with money.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's why I say.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm just trying to find his voice, it turns out he barely speaks
and the whole transcription is him, the whole transcription is like him and Amos
and there's here.
(Play a continuation of the recording.)
Attorney Beilin: Let's put it this way, Amos says, 'A few months until a lawyer.'
Q: That's his voice.
A: That's right.
Q: So let's hear it again. This is page 2, my songs.
(Play a continuation of the recording.)
Stop a moment. It's not crowded.
A: I don't recognize Avitar's voice.
Q: It's not busy but.
A: I may be wrong, but I don't recognize his voice, if I remember correctly he was
the one driving, but I'm not 100% sure, so I don't want to just say.
Attorney Rom: How do we know?
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: I don't know.
ATTORNEY ROM: Your honor. After all, we don't have a picture, it's not a recording
that you see video, how do we know who?
Hon. S. Brody: No, we said, second, voice recognition, minute, first of all voice
recognition is also done in audio, secondly, we said that Ran will help us agree,
he will say what his voice is, Amos's voice can also be heard there.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So the third, if you say he's Evyatar, then he's probably Evyatar.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: No, I said that I didn't recognize by the
voice that it was Avitar, I think he was in the car with me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: According to the date, it is possible to know who was there then.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No?
Attorney Bar Oz: No, but you can tell who was in the car that day, what's the
problem?
Hon. Barak Nevo: That's what I'm saying, that's what I just said.
Attorney Bar Oz: By the way, you went to Abu Kabir, it was listed at the gate you
entered.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: It's supposed to be listed, so it's supposed
to be listed who took it.
Q: That's right.
A: To Abu Kabir.
Q: Can you check this?
A: I don't have access to that.
ATTORNEY ROM: We'll try to check.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Can you find out?
Attorney Rom: We will try to check in the material if it is registered, if anyone
has registered.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's not a problem, it can be checked and it needs to be checked.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: Sometimes then there is a document that you
go, you get it in custody.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Every tape submitted to the court must be accompanied by an
accurate transcript, certainly the identification of the voices as well as the
contents. Moving on to the next thing, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The situation at the moment is that in T/469 the transcript is
inaccurate and we have no idea who was there. Look, let's try to remember right
now, actually we're talking about a trip to Abu Kabir that you're traveling with
Amos, there weren't many of them, there was one more trip that you recorded him,
but on this trip you're actually recorded you walk in a blade to the car, drive up
to the gate to Abu Kabir, when you get to the gate there are a few blackened lines,
that's why we got the disc late, you say something at the gate that you don't want
the defense to know, I don't know, maybe people's names, maybe certain things,
maybe there's some tape recorder in the car, I don't know.
Attorney Haddad: Who opened the prison gates?
Attorney Bar-Oz: But you're blackening whose password did he open? I know you.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Don't you know the password.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. With PDF blackening. Now, you don't remember which of the
detectives in Lahav, because all in all, with you, the execution people are already
some of them, they also testified here, it was Evyatar Noy, there was another
detective that Amir Lavon talked about who went and found joints that were
distributed in some event, there aren't many detectives who accompany you, right?
Or am I wrong? Is there variety?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: There are 4 in the unit itself, there were 4
detectives at the time, I don't know if other detectives from other units joined.
Q: No, no. It is then. This is as of August 19.
A: True, but in this incident in this case, during the entire conduct of this case
there were many forces, as you know, that were accompanied by others, so I don't
know if it was from the Cyber Unit at all?
Q: Pay attention.
A: But. Second. But even if it does give 4 options actually, I can't say exactly
who was that day, but you can check it in a simple way.
Q: I will tell you, it was no longer the Lahavi case, we are in August, Amos was
extradited to Israel, you no longer have all of Lahav's powers, in Silver's own
investigation and in all the actions it was net with them, net with them.
A: If it's as you say.
Q: From the moment it lands in Israel in August, again it's not an issue to bring
it's just you.
A: If it's like you say, then there are 4 options.
Q: Who are they? Come tell us. Evyatar Noy.
A: Tamir Sambato, Evyatar Noy, Wai ran away from my name, 2 more.
Q: Tamir Sambato was with the joints, which Amir Lavon said.
A: There was a commander of their force and I forgot his name, not Noam.
Q: Shai Barkai?
A: Shai Barkai, yes, thank you and another, well.
Q: Come whisper to me.
A: Young man, well, I know he lives in Rosh HaAyin, I know where he lives and I
don't remember his name.
Q: Say, well, you can say. Well, we'll remember the fourth. Let's put that aside,
we really need to deal with this matter here. You but, if we're already at that
point, look, you said that from your point of view, questioning is exactly the same
as an interrogation, that is, the warning is the warning that is added from the
interrogation.
A: No, that's not what I said, I want to explain.
Q: So get me right.
A: Important. You called what I call an interrogation, you called questioning,
there is a concept of questioning, the questioning reads can happen before the
warning at some opening or beginning of a conversation by a police officer with
someone who may be a suspect, this incident according to all definitions, it is not
my definition, I did not make this definition, what you call questioning is not
questioning, it is an interrogation for all intents and purposes.
Q: When you travel with him in the car to Abu Kabir, yes, and he is after an
interrogation that was conducted in an interrogation room and at the end of the
interrogation they say, 'We're done,' put the handcuffs back, start walking, drive
in the car and talk, so as far as you're concerned, this is an interrogation for
all intents and purposes?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. Does your suspect know this?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a minute, just a minute. There is such an issue here, I open
parentheses here because I, it may not be relevant to this case, but it is
important to note, in this matter there is some distinction as to what happens that
the questioning is the first thing you do with the suspect and he has not yet been
warned or he is under investigation and he has already been warned and consulted
and so on and then the questioning is done, there is a difference between the 2
stages, Right?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: The starting point, let me clarify the
starting point is that he was warned at the beginning of the day.
A: He was granted the right to consult and what happens that day onwards is an
investigation.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. I mean, the test is basically a day's work.
A: That's right.
Hon. S. Brody: This is actually a point that is important. Yes. This is a
clarification that matters.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes, of course, it's a distinction, it's very important. Are
you aware of the fact that in the past year legislative provisions have been
enacted that limit the hours of interrogation that say that except in certain cases
the interrogation will not exceed 6 hours?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I haven't worked as an investigation officer
for the past year and a half or two, I don't know what you just said.
Q: Okay. Good. I didn't make it. But maybe tomorrow I'll bring it. Look, it's hard
for me to accept what you're saying that an interrogation is a whole day's work,
it's hard for me to accept it because I think there's a very significant difference
and it's that the suspect isn't aware that he's in an official interrogation,
that's the difference, the awareness of the suspect and that's why a person can
give free rein to his tongue Sometimes it's good for you for the police, the
natural tendency of a person in custody to talk to someone to get out of him,
After all, this is used with informants, that's the whole concept, and here it's
true that he knows you're a police officer, but he doesn't know that he's under
investigation, he doesn't know that.
A: I will answer the 2 claims you made.
Q: Yes.
A: The first thing you don't accept is that it's still under investigation, it's
not my decision, it's the law and these are the procedures, that's how the Israel
Police works, if you have a claim against it, I'm not the address, but that's how
the law and procedures work.
ATTORNEY ROM: But that's not a minor claim.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: And as for the fact that he didn't know he
was under interrogation, I also don't agree with that because when he had, when he
wasn't comfortable answering questions, he said explicitly, 'I maintain the right
to remain silent on this matter,' meaning that he knew he could maintain his right
to remain silent.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, do you remember specifically when he told you that during
questioning?
A: I think it was when we were in the yard at Lahav, I think, you can see I don't
remember for sure, I think it was the date.
Q: I remind you, there was a subject that you really wanted to know both in Ukraine
and in Israel and that was that you thought Telegrass had a policeman in a blade,
remember? And you were very interested to know who this policeman was.
A: No, I don't think it's true what you're saying, I think there were a lot of
things I really wanted to know.
Q: That issue.
A: Wait a second.
Q: Yes.
A: There were many things I wanted to know, not only about the policeman, maybe
less, but in my opinion also about Yossi Meshi, if I'm not mistaken, I asked him
and he didn't cooperate.
Q: That's right.
A: I think, I'm not sure.
Q: That's right.
A: Is that true what I'm saying? Okay, but I think there was another thing about
the money, I'm not sure about that What I can say for sure is that there were a few
times when I asked him to cooperate more in interrogations outside the
interrogation room and places that were uncomfortable for him, so he said 'I will
give my version before the court and not here' and then we already talked about
occupied testimony and so on, I mean, there were quite a few incidents where he
told me, 'Listen, here I don't want to cooperate, here I don't want to talk, here I
reserve the right to remain silent,' it's pretty clear that he understood what the
situation was.
Q: Okay. Look, this whole thing about the policeman who allegedly works for
Telegrass in Ukraine you really focused on that, you asked him, we also heard at
the end of the interrogation that he jokingly says to you 'David' that you ask him
'what's his name?' and he says to you 'David', do you remember that?
A: I don't remember it, but OK.
Q: And also in Israel. Now say, did you really think there was a blade cop working
for them?
A: No. I don't know what others thought, I didn't really think there was a
policeman in the blade.
Q: Probably.
A: It seems to me to be a statement, I'm telling the truth, I would seem like a
sucking statement that might be based on some kind of something that someone
approached and he made some kind of nice connection like that to amplify it, but I
didn't, I didn't believe they had cooperation in the blade.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Keep going, keep going.
Attorney Bar-Oz: After all, as much as it was, leave any officer or policeman S.G.
Blahav who collaborates with Telegrass, someone would probably have sent some kind
of message before the break-in, there were presentations by Amir Lavon, briefings
for all forces, briefings for Moti Ohayon's operational force, briefings for Yaniv
Azani's technical force, Amir's presentations as early as February in the AFI Hall,
he told us all these things, Obviously there is no one from Lahav who works for
Tallgrass, after all, Amos everyone was so surprised He is also when you sit
opposite him in Ukraine He is sure that in Israel everything continues to go on as
usual He has no idea what is happening there, do you remember the one still
slamming you, 'Here I am, you are with me, but Telegrass continues to work
normally, everything is fine', remember that?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Remember.
Q: So you're saying that you were aware that it's just, it's a statement.
A: No, that's not what I said.
Q: Suck your finger?
A: I said I assumed.
Q: You used the phrase.
A: Yes. I assumed it was a sucking statement, I didn't leave it completely, so I
asked him over and over again to try to maybe get information after all, but I
didn't fully believe that statement.
Q: Okay. Good. So we go back for a moment to the consultation where we stopped
before the break. We got there, we slid into a side corner that has to do with the
public defender's office, this statement in the questioning, when I asked you that
in the interrogation in Ukraine after 53 seconds, you tell him that he has the
right to consult with a public defender, you say this, okay. And I really asked you
on a practical level, now he says, 'OK, I want a public defender,' so first of all,
are you talking about a public defender of Ukraine or of the country?
A: I think of the country.
Q: Think?
A: Yes, again you repeat the same point and I said it several times I explained, to
the best of my recollection there was an arrangement that if he wants to consult
with an attorney we connect him to an attorney from the defense attorney in Israel
if he wants a defense attorney, to the best of my recollection.
Q: Who did you talk to Amir Lavon about this?
A: Probably, my commander.
Q: Yes?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay and he was supposed to take care of it, I mean, you were supposed to
contact him and he was supposed to take care of it?
A: I think so.
Q: When you transferred Silver's investigation to Israel, what I presented to you
was T/468, how did you transfer it? Fax, mail?
A: I think it's mail. I don't think he was there, maybe I took pictures on my phone
and sent? I think I don't remember mail for sure.
Q: And who did it reach? To Amir?
A: I don't remember who I sent to, apparently to Amir.
Q: Okay, and you have no idea in the defense attorney's office in Israel if he
talked to which particular district?
A: I don't know.
Q: With a particular department?
A: I don't know.
Q: Detention Department, Appointments Department?
A: I don't know.
Q: I don't know. If you requested an exception for telephone consultation in
serious crime offenses?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know. I'm telling you that this is a completely empty statement, even
as much as Silver would ask to consult with the public defender's office, there is
no such operation of telephone or nightly consultation, you need to know exactly
which district you are addressing, which department you are applying to, the things
that have already been done, even though Shiri laughed about it. Coordinators the
night before even in the most secret operations prepare the defense attorney, so
the statement is empty.
A: I'm the night before being in Ukraine so I certainly didn't coordinate it.
Q: No argument.
A: But there's a kind of back office that I guess did things, did a lot of things
besides what I did.
(Talking together).
There are people who worked, I think this thing was based if he wanted to
consult a lawyer so they would take care of it, what do you mean?
Q: Somewhere there is some authoritative documentation for this.
A: I haven't seen one.
Q: Did you prepare this option in advance?
A: I haven't seen one.
Q: You haven't seen. Very well. Good. So we talked about the public defender's
office, we talked about the fact that at minute 23 he asks you if he can consult
with a lawyer from the consulate and you tell him no.
A: I didn't say no, you repeat it a fourth time, I say I don't.
Q: I don't know.
A: I didn't say no.
Q: 'If you can.'
A: So be precise.
Q: 'Someone from the consulate.'
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: That's a completely different answer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Great. And then you tell him, I'm continuing the conversation,
we've already talked about it. "Yes, you have the right to consult but, you said
you waited for us for a long time", now look, where is the explicit waiver of the
right to consult? These are the words that were said, you can also put the
transcript in front of you, when you say an explicit waiver it means 'I don't want
to consult with an attorney, I don't want to' is it explicit, is there an explicit
waiver of the right to consult with an attorney?
A: In this case, the concession arises from the circumstances and from the conduct
of the conversation, in other places in 2 other places in the conversation it comes
up explicitly.
Q: Got it.
A. That he says, 'Now no, if I want to later,' something along those lines.
Q: By the way, let's say even if it's true what you're saying for the purpose of
today's discussion and I don't agree with him, I think you denied the right, not an
implied waiver or anything, you knew that in another hour he would raise the issue
of the lawyer again and then he waived it explicitly, you didn't know, did you?
A: No, I didn't know, but it reinforces what I said, I understood from him that he
is not interested in consulting a lawyer at the moment, the fact that after an hour
he said it explicitly only strengthens what I said, my feeling, my understanding.
Q. Now look, even after an hour he didn't say it explicitly and we're now coming to
it. I just want to end the first act of the attorney. Unlike the beginning of the
testimony that you said that he explicitly waives an attorney, you agree with me
now that in your view the waiver is implicit, given the circumstances and what is
to come, right?
A. No, I said that's what I understood at that moment from him.
Q: Again I say.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Her name? What did you understand?
Attorney Bar-Oz: At the beginning of your testimony you said that he gave up
explicitly 3 times, now you're already saying, 'Next times yes, this time it's by
implication and circumstances.'
Q: Great.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, you're standing, maybe you'll summarize that it won't be
unclear. At first, he explicitly gave up.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: No, the first time I talked to him about an
attorney, he just kept talking.
A: And as we talk, I realize that we're moving on.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's right, and you continued to warn and explain.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This is the first time.
A: That's right. The second time I offered him a lawyer, I don't remember the exact
words, but it was something along the lines of, 'Right now, no, if I want to
later.'
A: Or something like that.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second. Yes.
A: And there was another time when I don't remember exactly what the words were,
the third time I suggested to him a lawyer doesn't remember exactly what he
answered, but you can check, I don't remember to just say.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But there wasn't, that's the question we'll have to decide, but
there wasn't anything that the right was blurred or wasn't given according to what
you tell.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Absolutely not. More than that, that's why I
repeated it 3 times.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You're saying that you proposed to him a second time and that he
gave up explicitly, yes?
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, he said, he said, 'Right now, no, maybe later.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, no, I'm talking to him about the second time.
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On the second time.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You say that the second time you proposed to him.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: If I don't confuse the second with the third.
Q: Okay. Wait, did you say that on the other 2 occasions you proposed to him and he
explicitly gave up or do I misunderstand you?
A: You misunderstand me.
Q: So let's say you.
A: I just said.
Q. The other two times did you propose to him?
A: For the first time. Yes.
Q: Okay and he explicitly waived both?
A. In one I said he said 'right now, not maybe later' and in the third I don't
remember what his words were, but I realized he wasn't interested.
Q. So on none of the occasions did he give up explicitly.
A: To say 'not at the moment,' I think that's an explicit concession.
Q: We'll put things in order. The time we talked about it at the beginning of the
interrogation, there is no dispute between us that he did not give up explicitly.
A: That's right, it was implied.
Q: He asks about the consulate.
A: That's right.
Q. About that, you say, 'I don't know,' and we keep talking.
A: That's right.
Q: This is not an explicit concession.
A: That's right, that's implied by what we keep talking.
Q: In your view, this is an implied waiver, I claim that you deny him his rights.
A: Okay.
Q: And offers him an empty proposal with a public defender with nothing behind it.
A: I don't agree with you at all.
Q: Okay. After all, you can't testify to the honesty that was made, you said that,
so why don't you agree with me?
A: No, but I know, but I know that if I contacted the country they would take care
of it, you say no preparations were made, okay, so you say.
Q: Let's come back to that again. You know, how do you know? How do you know? You
testify in court, how do you know that if he had asked they would have taken care
of it? I'm telling you.
A: I told you that this is what was agreed.
Q: There is no such thing as telephone consultation.
A: You say and I tell you.
Q: Does not exist.
A: That is what was agreed.
Q: It was agreed with whom? Have you agreed with the defense attorney?
A: I did not agree with the defense attorney.
Q: You've agreed with yourself so it's empty, it's nothing.
A: You say it's empty, I don't agree with you.
Q. Do you have any indication that a public defender would give him advice over the
phone?
A: No, I have no indication.
Q: So how do you know? So say, 'I don't know, Amir said and I trust what he says,'
that's fine.
A: Okay.
Q: Good. Now this whole situation, in the first act, you also have no knowledge
that the Ukrainians sitting in the next room conducting the investigation heard it
and understood what was said.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We said no, we said no.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Right?
Hon. H.S. Brody: We have said already.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We said.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We have said many times.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Great. Now look, we see it again I don't want to shock everyone
We've seen it many times, at minute 34 you say 'it's totally your right' at minute
42 you say to him 'Listen, we've seen the videos, you want to spread your doctrine,
you're not afraid of something, I'm all ears', do you remember these things or do
you need to see it again?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Yes, we saw that before.
Q: Great. To these words that you say that you urge him to speak and pluck about
the string that Amos Silver likes to speak and does not hide things, you elaborate
on this string after all, this is his weak point, the Ukrainians are aware of this
move to these words? In the end, they conduct the investigation.
A: No, they are not aware, I assume they are not aware because they do not speak
Hebrew.
Q: 100%.
A: If they hear.
Q: Okay. Now you've already agreed with me that it's not explicit consent, you know
the judges will have to decide the classic test of thanksgiving It's of free will,
when a person comes and asks you about a foreign country that you're the only
source of authority for him in the room if he can consult a lawyer from a consulate
and you tell him, 'No, but listen, we've seen your videos, you're not afraid of
anyone.' You pick him up, everything that comes after that is of good will and
free will, do you think?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes. Ok.
A. But I didn't say no to him the eighth time.
Q: Okay. Look, I'm telling you, I'm going to argue that what you've done here is
pulling the tongue while swallowing the rights, just swallowing them, saying them
for the record yes, practically they can't be applied and you're pulling it with
the tongue to move on. On. When seconds pass at 2.43 for a time counter, you say to
him, "You said you waited for this meeting for a long time, so what's in your
mouth?", do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: Right after that, not immediately, a few seconds in the conversation at 3.38 and
I refer to T/468T page 4 is that the question I asked you at the beginning if it is
the Ukrainian police? And you answer him "that's a difficult question", now I want
to dwell on this point and I want to understand why you didn't tell him whether it
was the Ukrainian police or not?
A: You asked me this earlier and I told you, I don't know, I don't remember why I
gave him this answer, it's very possible that because Snir and Sergei came in at
that moment maybe I was referring to them, maybe not, I don't know why I said that
answer.
Q: In the end, how many people are in the room? You, Snir, Sergei and the person
who takes off the handcuffs.
A: That's right.
Q: Tali hasn't come in yet, I think.
A: All three of them came in, I don't know.
Q: And Snir and Sergei say to him, 'Hello, hello, I'm Snir, I'm Sergei,' we only
have one left.
A: After he asked if it was the Ukrainian police.
Q: Yes, great. We only have one left, why not tell him, 'yes, no, I don't know'?
A: But your question is chronologically incorrect, because when he came in the
three of them came in together and then he asked and then they introduced
themselves, my answer was before.
Q: No problem, before they told him 'I'm Snir and I'm Sergei', 3 people come into
the room, you know it's Snir, it's Sergei.
A: I know who's who.
Q: And one who doesn't know how to ask.
A: Again I don't know.
Q. So the one who doesn't know how to ask tell him, 'Ukrainian, not Ukrainian.'
A: Again I don't know who the question out of the 3 refers to, and I also don't
remember why I gave that answer, I don't know what was going through my mind at
that moment.
Q: I don't remember. Look, the point is like this, I will argue that you mislead
him into thinking that the authority is yours in the investigation when you hide
relevant information like whether the person in the room is Ukrainian police or
not.
A: It doesn't make sense what you are.
Q: And I want your reference to it, it's not enough for me, 'I don't remember.'
A: So I relate, it doesn't make sense what you're saying because I during the
conversation tell him 'I'm a tourist like you here, I'm here from the authority of
the Ukrainians', I'm saying it as explicitly as possible, you can't claim such a
thing, it's just not true.
Q: This is a very advanced continuation of the investigation, not at first at all.
A: But it shows that I didn't hide.
Q: You're already about to have three-quarters of an investigation.
A: So say I hid at first maybe it will catch on, but it's not true what you're
saying.
Q: So you agree with me that you hid at first?
A: No, absolutely not.
Q: Okay too.
A: I said that's what you can claim, it wouldn't be true.
Q: Good.
A: Later in the same factual I can show you that you are wrong.
Q: Okay. Now you also agree with me that at this point you, as an Israeli
researcher, just said there is no authority, you are a tourist, there is no
authority, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. And those who do have authority have no indication that they have heard
or are aware.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We said that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: To the question and answer.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We said, we said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Onwards. Moving on. Right, only? Let's end this point.
Q: Great.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We have summed it up.
Attorney Bar-Oz: First act of counseling V, second act of consultation, Beilin,
let's prepare disc 514 You have the 2 and 3 together.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Which? Which disc?
Attorney Bar Oz: Do minute 19.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is the first.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What kind of drum is that?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Wait. The first is T/468 the transcript is Tu, the documentation
is a and we refer to the time meter It starts from 19 minutes, wait, second, no
more projection. Now look.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What minute did you want to address?
Adv. Bar Oz: 19 minutes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's from 19:30, even 19 and 12 seconds, but let's start from 19
frequently.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And you wanted to tell us on which page as well?
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's possible, no problem.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In a page transcript?
Attorney Bar Oz: Wait a minute. In this transcript on page 14 starting from line
18. Now. What happened?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Here he is.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, the disc is here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The transcript is not there?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Wait.
Adv. Bar-Oz: The transcript of the first T/468To. This is an important passage.
Hon. Barak Nevo: In any case, you won't come.
To Kiryat Gat now, a quarter to 15, how will you get to Kiryat Gat at 15:30?
Mr. Buganim: If I leave at 15:30, I will arrive at 16.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So I asked what time you should be there. Judge Brody.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I heard in half an ear.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The defendant has to take the girl out of kindergarten at 16:30 in
Kiryat Gat He asks if he can leave.
Mr. Bouganim: 16.
Hon. Barak Nevo: 16, sorry, 15 and a quarter to leave.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Are you here with the car?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He needs to get out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Have you looked at Waze? It is ok?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He asks if he can be released?
The Honourable H.S. Tamir: T/468 Transcript VI.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Concurring, yes?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: That's what he said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you agree, Beilin?
Hon. Barak Nevo: You're 5, right? Defendant 5.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, Defendant 5 is consensual. Just a second, just a second. By
consent, we allow the defendant to leave before termination.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He will not agree to be released before Barel.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Leave before the end of the discussion and the discussion will
continue in his absence, as stated, this is agreed. Please, can you go.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not now, on the 15th.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On the 15th, OK.
The Honorable Barak Nevo: 15 and a quarter.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So whenever he needs to, now a quarter to 15.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay, so the interrogation continues for 20 minutes, in fact all
this time the subject of an attorney does not come up, now you say that later you
propose to him, right?
Q: That's what you said. And he's explicitly giving it up, right?
A: Like I said, he said, 'No, at this point.'
Q: Okay.
A: I don't remember if it was the second or third time.
Q: Good. Let's see the second time. We said from 9, come on from 9.
(Playing video).
Back, back. It's great. You know what let's take, I want to hear it
completely, 2 minutes back from 17, from 17.00 line it 2 minutes back, 3 minutes
back, yes, from here.
Stop for a second. Say, while we're here, did you check that Telegrass had a
sexual harassment prevention industry? Do you know that?
A: I remember this case, I know there was the issue of sting, I don't remember to
say if there was the issue of sexual harassment if there was a branch of sexual
harassment, I don't remember to say.
Q: As part of those very 17 branches that are drawn.
A: So I say, I don't remember all 17 branches.
Q: In the indictment.
A: I don't remember all the directions by heart, I don't remember the oral
hierarchy, I don't remember all the branches by heart, I say I remember there was a
sting, I don't remember if some of it was or wasn't the issue of sexual harassment.
Q: When there are industries like this that are, I don't think there can be a
controversy that doesn't go beyond the fact that the headline is cannabis, but
there's nothing illegal about preventing sexual harassment, shaming someone who
sexually harasses and complaining about someone who sexually harasses, you sketched
it within a branch of a criminal organization that thanks to this has the structure
of a criminal organization? I ask you.
A: You have to ask me questions, things that I've done and you can present to me
because asking me now which branch the unit drafted or didn't draw is a question I
can't answer.
Q: Do you know what my problem is with that? I'll explain it to you exactly. After
all, you took over the Tallgrass user, right? In the breakout, even a drop before.
A: I wasn't aroused, I can't answer that.
Q: So I'm telling you, you guys took over Telegrass's user and what happens on
Telegram that you don't take any action on the account for six months?
A: There are settings where you can delete your account, not necessarily.
Q: Default, default?
A: There are a lot of options, I don't know how to say.
Q: No, there isn't much, Telegram defaults.
A: There are plenty.
Q: Didn't you deal with Telegram?
A: So I say there is, Telegram is a platform, its various interfaces have dozens of
different interfaces.
Q: As a rule, Telegram.
A: Your question is inaccurate.
Q: Yes, explain about the interfaces actually, explain. Yes, let's explain about
the different interfaces.
A: Telegram, I'll explain, Telegram is open source, I mean anyone who wants to can
take it and make all kinds of changes in the way things look in settings,
languages, submenus and so on so when I say basically that after six months it was
deleted it's only for a certain version, it won't necessarily appear in all
versions.
Q: If we say we are talking about a version of Telegram some kind of interface
different from the usual, can you attest to its features and characteristics or
not?
A: No, not on everyone.
Q: Not all of them.
A: It's something that needs to be studied.
Q: Let's say there's the mobugram after all, do you know what it is?
A: Mobugram, yes.
Q: Yes, what is it?
A: One of the versions of Telegram, I can't again I can't now.
Q: Which is not identical in terms of characteristics to regular Telegram?
A: No, no, again I will clarify.
Q: I'm glad to hear that, you're the first to say it.
A: There are dozens of versions. Ok.
Q: Yes, that's right.
A: There are dozens of versions of Telegram, I probably now do not remember by
heart and even then do not memorize all the versions and all their functions.
Q: First of all, I'm very happy about this statement, it's the first time we've
heard it in the courtroom after 4 years of computer researchers arguing with us,
'It's the same thing' and we tell them, 'Mobugram is something else, Telegram X is
something else.'
A: Okay, so it's good that we got it right, the basis is the same.
Q: Right, right, you're accurate.
A: And you can make all kinds of changes.
Q: Right.
A: It's like buying a car and you can make all kinds of additions and changes.
Q: You're right, you're right. Now let's go for the most basic now Rafi downloads
Telegram, OK? The cyber intern from the app store, Telegram As the Durova brothers
developed them at the most basic time in the world without any upgrade without
anything, do you know the default according to which if you don't make any changes
to the app for six months, everything is deleted?
A: No, that's also not accurate.
Q: So?
A: First of all, it's not a change in the app.
Q: Get me right.
A: So I explain, it's not a change in the app because the Telegram account can also
be accessed from a computer for that matter, so it's not necessarily in the app, it
can also be on the Internet if you access the account, so a. It's not a change in
the app or not not touching the app and regarding the issue of six months, again it
varies between versions and there are dozens of versions The basic Telegram itself
also has dozens of versions Things that change all the time and also the question
of which version, So you said Telegram, OK, the question is in which version? I'm
not in the bottom line, I can't sign what you said.
Q: No problem. I asked, because I'm not an expert either, I asked the real expert
Amir Lavon, Amir Lavon wrote a report on Telegram, instructed Bromi how to write a
report on Telegram and he understands Telegram and Amir Lavon confirmed to me that
on the day of the hack they took over, I don't remember anymore, there was
Telegrass and 3 other different users of control Corlima, Karolima, all kinds of
things that cyber took over the users and when I told Amir Lavon that after six
months it was deleted he didn't answer me Like you and I appreciate your answer
more By the way, there are different versions and it is impossible to know, but he
did confirm to me what I say and it is true, it is also not an expert can, now you
download Telegram you do not do with it You know what not to touch the phone, does
not make any use of it, not on the computer, not in anything default is that it is
deleted, I told him, all the information that was Telegrass, all the bots,
everything was deleted because you took over the users and didn't take any action,
so today I can't come and show you things because significant visual damage was
caused here, that's my difficulty today, you know?
A: Are you asking a question? What?
Q: Question mark.
A: No, you're saying about something Amir did that I don't attest to what he did.
Q: Yes.
A: And not about the result you say it existed.
Q: Beautiful. Look, you opened 3 users of Ran Buganim.
A: I opened Ran Buganim's user 3?
Q: Yes.
A: Can you show me that I'm what you're talking about?
Q: No problem, I'll show it to him. It's even in a featured binder in my opinion,
isn't it? They didn't serve it in my opinion, it's not in a display binder.
A: I remember who Ran is?
Q: Do you remember Ran Buganim?
A: No, I'm looking and I'm looking.
Q: He should be on the 16th in Kiryat Gat. Leave, write you aside. Let's continue
to show him the passage, after all, we skipped from Amos's speech. We were in the
second act of consultation. Write down the Buganim useries that tomorrow we will
ask. Let's move on.
Stop. Say, are you offering him a lawyer here?
A: No, no.
Q: Now what we've seen, are you suggesting to him?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Let's move on.
Who brings up the issue of lawyers for the second time?
A: Amos.
Q: Amos, great. So no you are raising, let's continue.
Let's stop, let's stop. Ok. Amos after 20 minutes still doesn't understand
the situation at all, he still doesn't understand that this is a criminal
investigation, he doesn't understand, you woke him up at night, he's groggy, he's
not a machine that within a second you wake him up at 4 a.m. answers everything and
after 20 minutes you're already talking let's say for the first time. Here, he
found the user, put it aside. You distract me all the time. After 20 minutes of
talking to him on the merits of Telegrass, all things hierarchy, who set up? The
most important questions, he comes like this and says while 'What is an
interrogation without the presence of an attorney?' and you say to him 'No, the law
is not like in the United States there is no lawyer present', now I have shown you
that in Ukraine there is a right to have an attorney present in some cases
including serious crime cases including cases of pre-extradition detention
including cases of foreign nationals even, Why are you telling him that there is
no right to be present?
A: I don't know that.
Q: But I'm sure the Ukrainians who are conducting the investigation from the next
room heard it, cried out, said, 'Guys, guys Vladimir Zelenetsky,' I don't know
what, 'Yes, there is a right to be present in Ukraine, let's tell this American
citizen that the Israeli investigator is misleading him,' what do you say? Could it
be? Was there such a thing?
A: No, there was no such thing.
Q. Because they didn't hear that at all. You stopped everything and turned to them
and said to them, 'Guys, guys, although I ask him questions but I know I have no
authority here, I'm a tourist and therefore an interrogator asks me a question
about the presence of a lawyer, let's check where your legal advice is?'
A: No.
Q: No. Now you also come and mislead him, you tell him, 'No, it's not like the
United States,' what is the connection to the United States now? What is the
connection? Who talked about the United States?
A: Because he comes from the United States.
Q: The operation is called Captain America, he's also an American citizen, but
maybe he was talking to you about Ukraine? He is presumed to know the law, he is
now on Ukrainian soil, the presumption is that he knows the law and that he knows
that there is a right to have an attorney present.
A: Later in the conversation.
Q. So why mislead him?
A: Later in the conversation.
Q: Yes.
A: An immigrant thought that in Israel there is a right to have an attorney present
and he expresses surprise about it, and then I explain to him that in Israel there
is no such right, there is a right to consult.
Q: Okay. So agree with me, maybe not maliciously you know what, maybe not
maliciously, but you did mislead him here because the fact is that there is a right
to be present in Ukraine and you told him that there is none.
A: And I replied that I don't know it.
Q. So pay attention, you're misleading him, you're not telling him, 'I don't know,
I'll check,' you're telling him, 'No, it's not like in the United States,' you're
stating and you're the source of authority.
A: And I replied that I don't know it, my answer doesn't change, I don't know it.
Q: So I say again, I ask you to answer me.
A: What's the question?
Q. You misled him, you misled him, what do you say about misleading him? There is a
right to be present, you told him explicitly that there isn't, you could have said,
'I don't know, I don't know, I'll check, I'm here, I'm there, you positively tell
him 'no.'
A: To the best of my knowledge, at the time I didn't recognize that there was a
right to consult, are you saying that I misled him? I may have misled him, of
course, not maliciously, for lack of knowledge.
Q: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In Ukraine.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: In Ukraine, that's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's continue, let's continue.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Wait, did you just say the right to consult?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Right to be present, sorry.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: So I'm correcting.
A: That's right, right of presence.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is also consultation, but.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, he said.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, but he meant presence.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You say you weren't aware of it, so if you said otherwise then.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Probably, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He confirms that he was misled, not maliciously.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, but not maliciously.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Not maliciously, God forbid. I argue yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What do we see now?
Attorney Bar-Oz: We continue the second act of consultation.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's go back 20 seconds because it's important.
Look at his face how he looks at you in wonder, wonder, he already has
glasses on his face, so he does see and you gave him a big thank you for a glass of
water, that's nice of you, but he looks at you as a source of knowledge He's alone
there, he has no one to talk to, a completely foreign country, you don't feel
uncomfortable coming and explaining things to him that aren't true, Yes,
maliciously, not maliciously, to mislead him and continue 'in Israel this way and
there like this'? Really.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: First of all, I was right in what I said
about the right to have an attorney present in Israel.
Q: I agree with you.
A: I didn't mislead him, you say I don't feel comfortable?
Q: Yes, yes.
A: The right to have an attorney present in Ukraine I didn't know about it then and
that's what I answered too, I answered him as I saw fit at that moment, what would
I feel uncomfortable telling him what I know?
Q: Look, this is the second time that your interrogator in an interrogation on his
own initiative raises the issue of a lawyer, the first time you agreed with me that
he did not give up explicitly, but he raises it without you offering him anything.
A. And here, too, he said he wasn't interested.
Q: Wait, sir, wait. You don't offer him, you don't offer him, you don't say,
'Right, there's no right to be present, consult you can,' now, A. Public Defender's
Office.
ATTORNEY ROM: But he did say that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Don't interfere, please.
ATTORNEY ROM: He said it before, there is a right to counsel, he said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Don't interfere, please.
Attorney Beilin: Shiri, do you want to testify in his place?
ATTORNEY ROM: Don't say the wrong things.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you want to object? Let the witness come out and I will answer
you.
ATTORNEY ROM: The witness does not have to make any objection.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Good.
Attorney Rom: We just heard the witness say to him, 'There is no right to be
present, but the right to counsel,' so how do you tell him that he didn't say that?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: So Amos is guilty that he didn't say, 'I want to talk to him, not
just for him to be present.'
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay, don't argue among yourselves, the facts are clear, everyone
will argue later what he wants.
ATTORNEY ROM: If the facts are clear, why should cross-examination continue with
the cross-examination at that point for an entire day, ma'am? All day we're on the
same point.
(Talking together).
Attorney Bar-Oz: So let's not investigate.
ATTORNEY ROM: The facts are really clear.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's not investigate at all.
Attorney Beilin: If the facts are clear, why was Amos interrogated 18 times after
he returned to Israel?
Attorney Rom: Everything is recorded, the facts, the things appear Why do you have
to hear it 10 times? Understand.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: You get it.
Attorney Rom: Argue this in the summaries, why does the witness need to hear this?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Let's submit all.
Attorney Rom: 10 times?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Can we give more instructions about the other witnesses as well?
Because I really don't know what to do.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But what it is.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I would be happy for legal advice.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Allow an endA: To shorten, it is possible to shorten it a bit.
That's right. Please. Keep.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. As I said in this matter, you don't offer him a lawyer, he
raises this issue on his own initiative, right?
Q: No matter presence, consultation, it comes from him, so what you said at the
beginning that 3 times you offered him an inaccurate lawyer because you didn't
offer him, he raised this issue, you answered him right, wrong, yes deception, not
deception, I'm putting aside, but he brought it up, you didn't offer him anything,
right?
A. He brought it up and I told him he could consult an attorney and he kept saying,
you stopped him from saying he wasn't interested in consulting an attorney, go on.
Q: As for the very proposal, the very offer.
A: I suggested.
Q: Did you propose to him here? Did you bring it up on your own initiative?
A: Not on my own initiative, but when he brought it up I told him he had the right
to consult, he asked about attendance and I said, 'You have the right to consult.'
Q: Onward, let's continue, let's continue.
Obvious. Ok. Now look and I continue all day and we will continue tomorrow
because you trample on the person's rights nicely, you are not dangerous, Ran, you
are nice, but you trample on his rights, why do you tell him before the
interrogation now he wants to consult, he has no right to stop everything and
consult? Why do you say 'Terem' to him? You still emphasize the Terem, you mislead
it, what do you say?
A: I say that your interpretation of the conversation that is taking place there is
wrong and misleading, the language of the law is that he is allowed to consult
before an interrogation, and even now I tell him this, and even now he refuses to
accept an attorney, and even later I bring it up and offer him another lawyer and
he refuses, to say that I am, after all, if I really were.
Q: Ran, you don't.
(Talking together).
ATTORNEY ROM: Wait, let him.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I'm not done.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Even the third time, you don't offer him an attorney.
A: I'm not done.
Q: You're lying here in court, Ran.
A: Please, then bring the things and see them.
Q: Here, a second time.
A: So look at things.
Q: I'll also get to the third.
A: The second time I offer him a lawyer.
Q: You don't offer him.
A: And he says.
Q: Attorney.
A: I offer him a lawyer.
Q: He brings it up on his own initiative.
A: Again and again, I didn't talk about the initiative.
Q: And you're misleading him.
A: I didn't talk about the initiative.
Q. You tell him 'Beterem.'
A: I didn't talk about the initiative, I keep saying that he has the right to
consult, according to you, if I wanted so much to hide it, I would get rid of it
the first time and skip it the other times, I didn't do it, every time I put things
on the table, every time I say things very clearly and you deny it, You make
things up the way you want.
Q. Ran, I'm showing you now what came out of your mouth.
A: Great, what came out of my mouth was consulting with a lawyer.
Q: Sir, listen to me a minute, please. I didn't interrupt you. You said at the
beginning that you offered him a lawyer 3 times.
A: That's right.
Q: We've already gone over it, do you want another time?
A: Don't you hear the suggestion? Don't you hear the suggestion that I tell him
that?
Q: Are you offering him a lawyer?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you say?
A: Play it again, please.
Q: We'll play it again. You tell him, 'Before the interrogation, you have the right
to consult with a lawyer,' that's what you're saying.
A: You treat the word before as if it were some kind of thing, the language of the
law always says and always it is also in.
Q: In what?
A: By warning that it is possible to consult with an attorney before the
interrogation, you take the word before that and make it predict everything.
Q. Say, don't you tell him after that, don't you tell him after that, 'If you want
to go later, then say and we'll pause'?
A: I say that at some point.
Q: You're saying that, right? You know it's not before the investigation.
A: Well, you're reinforcing what I'm saying.
Q: No.
A: Even after that, you just remind me, thank you very much.
Q: No, I'm not reinforcing.
A: You, second, you remind me, thank you very much for that, you remind me that we
said it afterwards too.
Q: There's nothing for it.
A: Even afterwards we said that at any stage he wanted he could get an attorney, so
how can you claim on the one hand that we talked about it 3 times, I put things on
the table, I told him 'you can consult with an attorney', I told him 'defense
attorney', I asked him if he understood his rights, twice I told him again 'you can
also consult with an attorney and even if you want at any stage you will say', He
both this time and the time after that clearly says he's not interested, so how can
you say I hid it? After all, since this morning we have been talking about the fact
that I claim to have said and said and said, you do not deny it because I told him
this, you say 'you said it in a nice way,' but I should not have said it at all, I
am obligated to say.
Q: Ran, you are misleading the court.
A: I'm not misleading the court.
Attorney Rom: I also ask, demand.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You are misleading the court.
ATTORNEY ROM: Sorry, I'm objecting to the questions now, I'm asking my friends to
make this conversation heard and not stop it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Of course I will voice it.
ATTORNEY ROM: I claim that my colleague is misleading the witness.
Attorney Bar-Oz: If you hadn't bothered me.
ATTORNEY ROM: My colleague is misleading.
Attorney Bar-Oz: If you hadn't bothered me.
Attorney Rom: He utters 2, 3 words at a time and stops.
Attorney Bar-Oz: If you hadn't interrupted, I would have made it heard.
ATTORNEY ROM: That the next sentence in line exactly matches what the witness says.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's what I said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I said, I did.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, the transcript, wait, don't shout. Which page for the
transcript?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, no, I'm listening to him, ma'am.
Attorney Rom: 14.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Which?
Attorney Bar-Oz: And I didn't just say these things to him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay, so let's continue, so let's continue.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, only we'll see in the transcript, which page?
Hon. Barak Nevo: He will play it for us.
Adv. Bar Oz: Page 14.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, second, page 14.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Will come here for this passage.
Hon. S. Brody: "You may consult," "You may" from line 26 listen to him.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm already showing him this and going verbatim with him about
what he's saying.
Attorney Rom: No, but telling him that he only says 'Terem' without showing him the
rest is misleading.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sorry, I'm coming to the continuation, I'm coming to the
continuation.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, you should have played it to him in advance.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And I said about the pause.
ATTORNEY ROM: And don't stop.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, you just said and repeated the statement and repeated the
wrong statement that he explicitly waived the right, each time you repeat it 3
times, you agreed with me that the first time is not explicit that you understood
it retroactively from the circumstances.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: Not in retrospect, I understood it at that
moment, what is it in hindsight?
Q: Implicitly, right?
A: Yes, during the conversation.
Q: Great, so why do you say 3 times explicitly? Every time we will come back to
this 😊 Let's go ahead and see the whole sequence as I wanted to show you, start
even from scratch from 19.20, you're in file 3, so take it back 20 seconds.
Everything, now let's not interrupt it and repeat the segments one by one, as if
I'm misleading you, after all, it was submitted to the court everything.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We're a moment in the transcript, not the recording, well, in the
transcript of page 14 in the middle.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Exactly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second, turn on the recording and we'll have it.
Recorder: The recording keeps working just that the video.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. So sorry for a minute, just me saying, right now they're
playing T/468T on the page.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Increase your voice, I can't hear. Tuff?
Hon. S. Brody: T/468T Page 14 of line 14, right, Adv. Bar Oz?
Attorney Bar Oz: From line 14, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, okay, please. We listen.
That's when he notices.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's the important part of this. That's it, that's where the
disc ends.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Soon we will go through a trial trial for everything that has been
said, first thing as a criminal lawyer with a 15-year PZM I would love to know what
is the open questions stage, what is the open investigations stage in a criminal
investigation? What does this mean?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: Asks him a question and he answers.
Q: Okay. Look, an open question is usually a question you ask in a primary
investigation to which the answers are no yes and no, yes and no answers are a
closed question, I tell you, 'Ran, didn't you do this and that? Yes, didn't you do
such-and-such? No.'
Hon. H.S. Brody: Open question, 'Describe, book.'
Attorney Bar Oz: Exactly 'describe what you did, tell what you did,' I want to
understand, in a criminal investigation with a warning and we have the connotation
of consulting with an attorney, here, too, Mr. Fleisiger, he does not explicitly
waive his right, he asks you what you plan to know whether to consult or not, so
what do you tell him? We are in the open questions stage, 'I want to get your
position, your opinions, your statement', what is the open questions stage?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: He asks what the process is and I explain
what the process is, 'I ask you questions, then I transfer it to Israel, then we
decide,' you can see the rest of the disc, I don't have the transcript in front of
me right now, whether I continued to explain the process or not to explain the
process.
ATTORNEY ROM: So, please.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I explained in a way.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, as a layman, as a bystander, when I hear a police
investigator say to me, 'You are at the open questions stage,' you will accept the
opinions, the statement, and I am connotated with a dilemma with myself whether to
consult with an attorney or not after my interrogator misleads me and tells me that
I have no right to have an attorney present, even though my interrogator who I ask
naively in good faith, 'What are you planning for me?' says to me, 'This is the
open questions stage, Let's hear your opinions, you vote Bibi, you vote for Gantz,
I don't know, let's hear your opinions.' What is this?
A: Excuse me, what page is this on?
Q: I don't know what they brought you.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, that's the transcript.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I didn't refer you to anything.
ATTORNEY ROM: You wanted the following transcript.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Is this next?
Attorney Bar-Oz: You're not with me, I think.
A: I'm with you, I'm with you.
Q: What is the open-ended questions stage? We are now in the open-ended questions
phase, so answer me what is the open-ended questions stage?
A: I will answer.
Q: Yes.
A: What Amos asked was, 'What happens down the road?' and that's what I explained
and explained the process.
Q: You're evasive again.
A: No, I'm not evading, I explain.
Q: What is the open-ended questions stage? Why do you call it open-ended questions?
It sounds like what he's saying won't do him any harm, so he doesn't need to
consult a lawyer.
A: That's your interpretation from now on.
Q: What is my interpretation? It's very simple, give me a different interpretation.
A: Your interpretation from now on.
Q: Give me a different interpretation.
A: After all, we are after.
Q: Open-ended questions.
A: Okay. Finished? May I answer?
Q: Yes.
A: Okay. After all, it is not disconnected from what it was before, before it was
properly warned and before.
Q: He wasn't properly warned, I disagree with you.
A: Let me finish.
Q: You shot it in 10 seconds.
A: Let me finish and after that disagree with me as much as you want.
Q: Okay. Please.
A: Before that, before the open questions he was properly warned, it was explained
to him why he was here, all the sections in which he was suspected were explained
to him, his rights were explained to him, we talked about a lawyer and then we
started talking about it and when he asked what is the process that is going to be
now? I explained to him with a very simple explanation what the process is, do you
think I should have opened some kind of rule book and explained to him in detail
according to professional terms what the process is? I didn't think, a person asked
me, 'What's the process?' I explained to him what the process was, that's all, by
the way I did it too, and I also said that this is the big process and I'm not
exactly familiar with the procedures between the countries, I explained in the
simplest and most logical way possible.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What's wrong with his explanation? That's what I didn't
understand.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I will also say more than that, because he
asks himself about the interrogation, he understands that he is under
investigation, he says it himself that he is under investigation, so you can't take
that word.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He tells him that he is returning to Israel.
A: Open and disconnect the whole event.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And he remains in custody.
Attorney Bar-Oz: When he asks you if he can.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He explained to him what would happen to him to his question.
Attorney Bar-Oz: When he asks you if he can consult with an attorney at first he
says, he asks you if this is an interrogation without an attorney present, and then
you tell him, 'No, but you are entitled to consult,' his answer that he asks you
this question, that you ask him this question is not explicit.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: What?
Q. He doesn't explicitly give up on an attorney, you come and tell him, 'The
question is whether you're interested in consulting with an attorney or do we keep
talking?' So he gives you this, 'I'd love to hear from you what you're planning to
know what I am.'
A: No, that's not his next sentence.
Q: It does. I'm very precise. You're at 34 asking him, "Oh, so the question is
whether you're interested in consulting an attorney or do we keep talking?"
A: No, but that was after his statement.
Q: And Amos's answer, I'm taking you back before the openings to give it my all.
A: No, no, fine.
Q: The picture.
A: So let's give the whole picture.
Q: Let us understand all the deception.
A: So let's understand it properly.
Q: Great, great.
A. After all, he says, 'I've always said I'm not interested in consulting a
lawyer,' I just can't find that sentence right now.
Q: Great.
A: But that's what he said.
Q: On the 30th.
A. I mean, you can't take one word and detach it from all its connotations,
circumstances and statements.
Q: I agree with you, I agree with you. So right after you mislead him about
attendance.
A: Sorry for saying this, but Amos, if you bring him now to speak here as well, he
will lay out his doctrine to you.
Q: Where do I know?
A: Because I am.
Q: Either yes or not.
A: Because I got to know Amos a little bit.
Q. So why didn't he lay out his doctrine in the investigations in Israel?
A: He's a prize.
Q. Maybe because he consulted with a lawyer?
A: He's totally rewarded.
Q: In questioning.
A: No, it's not questioning, it's investigations for all intents and purposes. And
you want to tell me that the lawyer didn't tell him, 'Listen, they'll record you
here too, they'll record you there too,' obviously he was told and yet he
cooperated fully where he wanted and where he didn't want to, he didn't speak.
Q: Look, after that I'll show the improper legal advice you gave him in the
questioning, we'll get to that tomorrow.
A: Which? We said it wasn't me.
Q: No, no, you, you.
A: Am I again?
Q: Yes, yes, in the questioning between you specifically, not on the trip to Abu
Kabir, when you go down to cigarettes you explain to him the meaning of occupied
testimony.
A: That's right.
Q: Of the right to remain silent, you remember, actual legal advice.
A: Remember there was something like that, yes.
Q: Yes, yes, yes, legal advice par excellence.
A: It's not legal advice, he asked and we talked, it was a conversation.
Q: No, no, no. He didn't ask.
A. And I didn't mislead him and no, I didn't mislead him with anything.
Q: You came and said.
A: So I initiated, fine.
Q: We'll see it tomorrow.
A: No problem, fine.
Q: But here I stay in the second act of consultation, which is not that you propose
but Amos raises the issue of an attorney and you mislead him about attendance, says
Amos, no problem Here's a line back, as you wanted, "I always said I didn't want an
attorney, I never tried to say yes because I didn't know that" and then he says and
then you tell him, "The question is whether you are interested in consulting with
an attorney?", here you ask him explicitly, you do not propose, you ask and then he
answers you, he asks you in good faith, "What are you planning for me?", Is Amos's
question "What are you planning for me?" as far as you are concerned an explicit
waiver of consultation? That's what I asked.
A: Again in the conversation between us, you cut off one sentence and I look at the
totality, I look at an event in which I am in a conversation with a person, in an
interrogation with a person.
Q: In the open-ended questions stage.
A: I don't know how long it's been since then, maybe half an hour, maybe more,
we're having some kind of conversation and I understand from the person that he's
not interested in consulting with a lawyer, it was very clear to me.
Q: Great. Is this an explicit or implied concession?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, he explained.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's not clear to me, ma'am, it's important to me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But there is a bit of a feeling that we are stepping on the spot a
bit, we can shorten, really yes.
Attorney Bar Oz: Madam, if it's late.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It is possible.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We can also end the discussion.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I want to investigate calmly.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not related to the conversation.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I have important things to investigate.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not related to the late hour.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Did you hear me say anything about the hour?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, but.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You speak from what you may be feeling, but no, no, no.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It could be, too.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no. Probably, I've known you for two days.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'll dwell on that. I know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But, but I said, I didn't say you wouldn't investigate, I said you
can cut it short.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Indeed, yes, it repeats itself.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's move forward, Ran, really.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And we heard.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Please.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And all right, he answered.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's move forward.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And he said the principles and we basically go back to the same
point.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's move forward.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Is this an explicit waiver of the right to counsel? Really I'm
asking you.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: That's a waiver, yes.
Q: Explicit? Tell you, 'I don't want a lawyer?' When he asks you, 'What are you
planning for me?', is that an explicit waiver of the right to consult an officer
with the rank of Superintendent of the Israel Police, yes or no?
A: I said, as I understand it, it's a concession.
Q: Explicit?
A. Again what's explicit, he didn't tell me, 'No, I don't want to.'
Q: Great.
A: 'I don't want to see a lawyer,' he didn't say that.
Q: So that's an implied concession?
A: What?
Q: Is that an implied concession?
A: You could say it's an implied concession.
Q: Great, so also the second time that you claim that I remind you that you said '3
times explicitly waived an attorney', also the second time it's not explicit, it's
implied. On. Sergei replies Sergei replies that you ask what you are planning for
him, Sergei tells him, not you, "down the road you can stop and say guys here",
what does he mean that he can later ask for advice from a lawyer? That it's not
before the investigation? That's what you meant earlier when you said, 'Later you
can request a pause'?
A: I think there's one more time I said it, but I understand Sergei said it too.
Q: Okay. Sergei has the authority to investigate, to ask more than you, less than
you, in the same way as yours?
A: I don't know exactly what the authority's powers are, I think it's more or less
the same in terms of the investigative questions.
Q: And abroad? Same same, isn't it?
A: I guess so.
Q: Okay. Good. Sergey will answer us about that too. Ok. Then.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Evgeni.
Attorney Bar Oz: Dima. Now we are following the connotation of his implied waiver
of consultation and you give here the title of the open questions and basically you
say to him "we want to receive here" and you say 3 things, "your statement, your
opinion, your answers to the questions and I take it to Israel", I say again and I
remind you of what I said at the beginning, he does not understand the situation at
all, He doesn't even understand that this is an interrogation, it was also
difficult for me, I'll tell you the truth, to understand the situation of what
happened there.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: But he says it's an investigation himself,
how does he not understand?
Q: I don't know.
A: What don't you know? He says.
Q. Again I say, he doesn't understand the implications of where this will go.
A. He says, 'I'll go to detention,' and that's explicitly stated.
Q: How will it go? Beauty.
A. How can you say he doesn't understand?
Q: The stage you're at isn't the whole thing, it's that the police arrested him, he
understands, he's going to be arrested, obviously, but you sit across from him and
interrogate him, an investigation that the prosecution will one day ask to submit
as evidence against him, why not answer him clearly and not say something like the
'open questions stage', I as a layman understand that it's like the confession of a
witness.
A: Within this conversation.
Q: That's how I understand.
A: After all, this particular part that you also cut him off from the
circumstances, but also this specific part starts with him making sure that it's an
investigation and it's clear to him that it's an investigation, it arises from him.
Q: Without an attorney present.
A: And even later when we talk about arrest and he says and I explain to him that
we are asking for extradition and there is an issue between countries and I am
going with it back to Israel and he is going to detention, it is stated very
clearly, also by him even more than by me, he says 'I am going to jail, I am going
to detention' and then he says 'the detention is worse', everything there is
completely clear.
Q: Now you understand this question, the very fact that he comes and says 'lawyer,'
presence, consultation no matter what, because the fact that the suspect during the
interrogation on his own initiative raises this issue again, you don't see a real
obligation as an investigator and as a person in charge of all the power there
except for Igor who is outside, to come and at this point stop and talk to the
defense attorney, Talk to someone else and not smooth it out in some way and
continue with questions, like the first time?
A: I don't agree with the word slip, again, there's an investigation going on,
talking to a person for over 4 hours, there's dynamics, there are clear things,
there are things I bring up and he responds to, you're like taking this piece from
pick up an Embrace, saying, 'OK, stop everything, raise a flag and call' I don't
know to whom, it's really far from reality, it's really disconnected.
Q: Something more explicit, you know, really bothered me implicitly versus
explicitly, but something more explicit on your part, now, to this whole thing
again I mention you have no authority at all to investigate, the Ukrainians are
supposed to conduct the investigation, 1, the poor physical conditions that were
there, 2, and he has no explicit waiver of consultation, this is the second act
already. Now I will just remind for the record and I will refer to Article 42 of
the Ukrainian Criminal Code and Article 52 regarding the right to be present and
participate in the interrogation of a lawyer. It is 581. Ok. On. The interrogation
I get to the third act of consultation, the interrogation goes on and on, he
doesn't consult with a lawyer, right? At this time in the meantime?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. Does the option arise at some point to call an attorney in Israel?
A: I don't remember anything like that.
Q: Does a specific name of an attorney come up in Israel?
A: Yes, he mentioned the name of Attorney Kochavi, if I remember correctly.
Q: Yes.
A: And I said he couldn't consult with him, but everyone else did.
Q: Did you propose to him at this point?
Hon. H.S. Brody: What? What? I didn't hear the last sentence.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: Excuse me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That he wanted to consult with Adv. Kochavi.
A: That's right.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And to the best of his recollection he told him that with him he
could not.
A: That's right, Attorney Kochavi was part of this affair.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: From the interrogation.
Q. Did you suggest that he consult with an attorney at this point, or did he raise
it on his own initiative?
A: I don't remember, show me the transcript and I can relate.
Q: Come on, let's see. We're talking about T/468, you know what before we start I
need a break for a few minutes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I also need to know when we finish today?
Hon. Barak Nevo: What is the commander ringing?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, Commander.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, close the recording for a second.
Please.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So I call it the third act of consultation and I will call it this
act.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just let Soudry know that he'll be getting ready for Sunday, he's
usually ticked off at times.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I even told him maybe tomorrow I'll finish, but now he's in a
situation.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let him know tomorrow at around 12 o'clock what's going on.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Let's see disc 520, we're talking about T/468, we'll see it done
for 10 minutes and then we'll finish for today. We are talking about T/468A this is
the transcript, disc 520, I refer to page 6 of the transcript, there are no lines.
The Hon. Hashem Tamir: 21.
Hon. H.S. Brody: 21? Page transcript?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Page 6, about one-third after one-third page because there are no
lines here. In the time counter we are talking about 13.21.
Hon. S. Brody: I have some question, when you interrogate him even if you don't
show the tape and you interrogate him from the transcript, isn't that enough right
now, after we've heard excerpts? In general?
Attorney Bar-Oz: There are excerpts.
(Provision on recording).
Hon. S. Brody: Because the question is more of.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I prefer them to see the mimicry and the justica.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, all right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: As we saw in the previous act.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If necessary, fine. I ask.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, that knock.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, when necessary.
Attorney Bar Oz: The knock, the wonder when he looks.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I said if necessary.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If you don't have to, you can.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I don't fill your honor all 4 and a half hours, you'll probably
see it a few times alone, but the selected passages.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Good.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Here he indulges in coffee, I see.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, at a late stage, everything has already been taken out, you
can give it to him. On. Let's screen it, Beilin.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: That's right, line 6.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes, yes, that's where I start. 13.21.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We're listening. Please open a recording.
(Playing video).
Attorney Bar-Oz: Stop a moment. The one who passed by now was you in the black
shirt?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I think so, do you want to roll it back for
me to say certainly?
Q: No, I can't figure out who's ticking on the computer? It's you too, isn't it?
A: No, no, I think Sergei replaced me.
Q: Did Sergei insert answers to Silver's typed interrogation?
A: I don't know, go back a minute and I'll see.
Q: You signed it.
I mean, you walk behind him and someone else puts a text into the typed
interrogation?
A: I don't know exactly what he's working on, I think he's working on the same
document.
Q: The document that is P/468 of the investigation.
A: The investigation, yes.
Q: Is he signed as a testimonial collector?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Good. Let's move on.
Stop for a second. Yes, so Sergei is sitting on the computer, you say it
explicitly 'let me continue, Sergey', right? Honestly, do you agree with me that
Sergei ticked on the computer when you told him 'let me continue'?
A. Yes, but I'm here next to him, it's not like I left the room and he didn't ask
him questions and write answers.
Q: I don't know. Let's move on.
Let's stop for a moment. We've run on a lot of segments and you have to break
it down into pennies but here I have to. Did you send his brother a message that he
was looking for some Israeli lawyer besides Kochavi?
A. That's not what he asked for. Listen again to what he asked, he asked to
announce, he says, 'The only reason I wanted a lawyer was to announce that I was
here that I was under arrest.'
Q: I listen carefully.
A: Well?
Q. I listen carefully and I ask again, did you send a message to his brother that
he was under arrest? Did you know him?
A: I informed Israel, I did not contact Israel directly.
Q: To Israel.
A: Neither with his brother nor with Gali, I informed Israel.
Q: That's right.
A: Please announce, I guess, I don't remember exactly.
Q: Now look, you do know how to tell him that Kochavi won't answer him now because
he's in custody in this case, why don't you say that his brother and Gali are also
now detained in this case and he can't inform them?
A: I didn't, no one said he was under arrest in this case, sorry, Amos said he was
involved in this case, I didn't say anything like that, I just said, I didn't say
either, Sergei said that 'Attorney Kochavi won't answer you.'
Q: Sergei said.
A: There was no statement beyond that.
Q: Sergei said, no problem. And Amos says, 'He's involved in this case,' and nods
his head, and you don't say 'no' to him and you don't tell him, 'How about it.'
A: Well? So what's the problem?
Q. Why not tell him.
A. Why tell him?
Q. Both Gali and his brother can't be notified and can't be called?
A. Why let him know? I don't have to tell him that.
Q. You don't have to tell him.
A: Absolutely not.
Q. Shouldn't a suspect have the right to let someone know that he is under arrest?
A. There is and I told him that he has this right and I said that I will do it for
him as well.
Q: Okay.
A. I didn't understand where I had to tell him they were detained or not detained
or what their status was?
Q: No.
A: I'm supposed to announce, second, I should.
Q: It's that a person is under arrest.
A: Sorry. I'm supposed to let them know.
Q: Yes.
A. He asked 'please inform my brother and Gali of the situation' he said or I said
'I'll let me know both', I forwarded the message with it it's over, I don't need to
let him know their status.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And you transferred? And you notified?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I informed Israel, I did not contact his
brother directly or Gali.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He didn't know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Didn't you know? Wait, just a second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No one.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Did I announce?
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: I informed the country.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But for them to inform the family?
A. That they knew he was under arrest.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Shehmash Pasha. Just a second. Sing.
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Did you announce in her name? But with a message to let his family
know.
A: I asked, I wrote down, I don't remember exactly the text, so now it's hard for
me, but.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But basically.
A: Obviously, I sent a message to Israel, 'I want to let Gali and his brother
know.'
Hon. H.S. Brody: So that's what I'm asking.
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To Gali and to the brother of the defendant that he was arrested.
A: That's right. Obviously I couldn't do it directly and I did it through.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You did, but you did.
A: Whoever is in Israel.
Attorney Bar-Oz: How did you do it?
ATTORNEY HADAD: But why did Madam ask about the brother of the defendant who was
arrested?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, do not disturb, do not disturb, how did you do?
Hon. H.S. Brody: I, wait a minute.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, Judge Brody asked something.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sorry.
Hon. S. Brody: I heard what Ran, if I understood correctly, that Ran sent a message
to Israel and asked them to inform his spouse and brother that he was.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, no. That's not what I understood, the brother was under
arrest, he couldn't.
Attorney Haddad: Wait, there are several brothers.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It depends on which brother?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Are there any other brothers? I don't know.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, there are other brothers.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I object.
ATTORNEY HADAD: These are things.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I oppose, I oppose. If you want to say something that the witness
came out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, you have to understand what the witness said.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I object to what now.
Hon. Barak Nevo: We did not understand what the witness said.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, I want to.
Attorney Haddad: I will also ask that the witness come out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What did you actually say? Wait, first we'll hear what he's
saying, maybe we didn't understand something here.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes, yes.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, but it continues because he only played a part, it continues.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What is the connection?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: The interrogation is 4 hours, clearly.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What is the connection that continues?
ATTORNEY ROM: So I want him to read everything, for you to play it all to him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But only a second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's in front of his eyes.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: That's why I refresh him before the testimony he reads.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's in front of his eyes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I show him everything. The judge asked him, he said, I want to
question him about it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You said.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But you're not done.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That you notified Israel.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. I didn't hear his answer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Gentlemen, excuse me. Wait a minute. Ran, I want to see that I
understood correctly. You said a message to Israel, 'I informed the country.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sure.
Hon. S. Brody: So let's say in your own tongue what you announced? Maybe something
wasn't clear?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: So let me clarify, I don't remember exactly
the text that I wrote, but
Hon. H.S. Brody: In principle, what?
A: Under these circumstances, obviously I can't inform either Gali or his brother
and I sent a message to Israel, 'He asked them to inform his brother and Gali,' I
again, I don't have any.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean you put his request in writing?
A: No, I guess I wrote on some WhatsApp or something, again I don't have a document
to stand up and prove what I'm saying is true.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I heard that correctly.
A: But by the nature of the circumstances to contact him directly I can't, I have
some kind of back office to call it in Israel and I guess that's what I did.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So in short, his request was passed on.
Attorney Bar-Oz: How did you submit this request?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I guess on WhatsApp, I guess.
Attorney Bar Oz: I guess.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Now wait, now, Ren, take a look.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm asking for an order to review his WhatsApp. Really.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He can look into it now.
Adv. Bar Oz: On 12 March 2019.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: My WhatsApp was deleted six months ago.
(Talking together).
I'd even let you browse my WhatsApp.
Attorney Rom: I suggest that the company review Gal Amar's interrogation because it
is informed that he is under arrest.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Good.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second, just a second. Sing.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If possible, please, take a look at the rest of the text, because
there are probably other things that might give you even more about the picture,
something related to the other probably. After all, there are no secrets here,
everything is recorded, so what? What's the secret here?
Hon. H.S. Brody: You can ask him freely.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, can I ask?
Hon. H.S. Brody: If he made a mistake and said his brother.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'm waiting.
Hon. S. Brody: Maybe he happens to be in custody, so what has the sky fallen?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, no.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's what he asked for, so he made it clear. I don't think
everyone else was so sharp.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: So there you go.
Attorney Bar Oz: Look.
Hon. H.S. Brody: "I am reviewing the transcript."
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I look at the transcript and I see that what
I said is 99.9% accurate because I didn't send a message myself but asked them to
let Amir know that he would handle it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: 99%?
A: Yes, here, please, it says. 'Inform.'
Q: Everything here is recorded, you changed the answer 3 times.
A: I haven't changed.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I didn't change anything.
Attorney Bar Oz: 3 times.
A: I haven't changed anything.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait.
Attorney Bar Oz: 'I informed Gali' and that.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: And your questions are tricky questions.
(Talking together).
Recorder: You can't be transcribed.
THE WITNESS, Superintendent Fleisiger: Because it's written here.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And the answers are empty.
A: Your questions are even.
Q: They're both detained, so what, how can they talk to a lawyer?
A: The answers are here, everything is written.
Q: It's a joke.
<#4#>
Decision
The witness was questioned about an interrogation that took place several years
ago, so it is legitimate that he peruses and he uses the text, there is nothing in
it that should attack him, on the contrary, give him a moment to concentrate.
Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Attorney Bar-Oz: The witness changes his answer 3 times.

Attorney Bar-Oz: 'It's me, it's not me, 99% it's me.'
Hon. H.S. Brody: In summaries.
Attorney Bar Oz: What is it?
Hon. H.S. Brody: In summaries. Just a second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, now I'm cross-examining him, I want to get the answers from
him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, what's in here? Refer us to the main points, what do you say
there? What does the transcript indicate? There? Of the investigation?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I will go back a second, as I said to Madam,
I guess what I did was I sent a message to Israel, from here I see that actually.
A: Excuse me, I'm talking.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just a minute, please.
The witness, Superintendent Fleisiger: From examining the transcript, I see that I
say, 'Let Amir know, he'll take care of it, asked them to let Gali know, let them
both know he's under arrest, as much as possible,' especially since he's saying
here about a lawyer, I'll come back.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Who is he?
A: Amos.
Attorney Bar Oz: What is the brother's name? David, to your question, to the answer
you offered him that he has many brothers.
Hon. H. Brody: No, no, she did not suggest that he had many brothers.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The prosecutor suggested.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Forever an answer.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I asked.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He has many brothers.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, I asked, whether.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's exactly what the prosecutor said.
ATTORNEY ROM: I didn't say.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Exactly.
Hon. S. Brody: I asked, maybe there is another brother? We didn't know.
ATTORNEY ROM: But it doesn't matter. This method.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No matter.
Attorney Rom: Present the witness with a word or sentence at a time Ask him a
question, even if the entire transcript is in front of him, he doesn't read the
entire transcript, he refers to the question, he doesn't remember what is before,
after, after.
Attorney Bar-Oz: If you think what's in the transcript investigates it.
Attorney Rom: It's a shame that they don't show him the whole picture from the
beginning, the whole page.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Now he's reading, he's reading.
ATTORNEY ROM: Not the whole transcript, but.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Second, but he does it alone.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Excuse me, the whole transcript is not in his face?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, but it wasn't given to him, but the fact that he is in front of
him does not mean that he knows him by heart.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But he's on the podium, sometimes it's hard to see everything.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you want us to screen the entire 4 hours and then I will
interrogate him?
ATTORNEY ROM: No, give him a moment to read and then ask him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please, Ren.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He was supposed to do that before the main investigation.
Attorney Rom: And then Gal, I see in Gal Amar's interrogation they tell her on page
4, "Amos is under arrest, Amos is detained in Ukraine," in line 32.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Does that seem like the message to you? Let's check it out in
terms of timing.
ATTORNEY ROM: Check, here.
Attorney Bar-Oz: When do you tell Gali and when does he say he wants the message?
He says that this is already page 75 of the overall transcription.
June, until today you were quiet it was okay, it would stay that way, okay?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, why?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Really.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Don't speak ill of each other.
Attorney Haddad: It is claimed that they do not inform her, but they inform her, he
asked them to inform her.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I didn't ask you, but why are you answering me? Good. On. On. To
whom do you say, 'Register, ask them to inform Gali and his brother,' to whom? Who
do you say this to?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: As I said before, things are clear and
written, and as I assumed, I see that it's black and white, which is very clear.
Q: Buena a second ago you said it was from your WhatsApp and that it was deleted.
A: Whoever is there.
Q: Now you're saying someone else sent.
A: That's not what I said, wrong, you're putting words in my mouth.
Q: Ran, you're lying for the record.
A: I'm not lying.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, no.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He said, 'My WhatsApp has been deleted.'
(Talking together).
Hon. Barak Nevo: It is true that he said that his WhatsApp was deleted.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: What does it have to do with?
Hon. Barak Nevo: But he didn't say he sent it on WhatsApp, he says he thinks maybe
he sent it on WhatsApp.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Now he understands that it's not him at all.
Hon. Barak Nevo: When you asked, when you asked him, 'Look at your WhatsApp.'
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now he says, 'It's not me.'
Hon. Barak Nevo: So he told you that his WhatsApp was deleted, it's not, really.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: I want to say that your questions, questions
and comments are misleading.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You, you were misled.
A: They're misleading, wrong.
Q: My clients.
A: They're not true.
Q. You lied to him and cheated him.
A: Okay.
Q: That's what I'm saying.
Hon. Barak Nevo: You've said that, but many, many times.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Don't confuse my brain, really.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So now let him answer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Please. Thing.
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: So I want to say that the questions and
assumptions and directions that you do are misleading, you trust my lack of memory
for details, so lucky to have it written.
Q: Luckily there's Shiri here that gives you the opportunity to see the whole
transcript.
A: But you can't answer that way.
(Talking together).
I don't understand, you want to.
ATTORNEY ROM: Excuse me? That's how you have to do, you have to give it a chance.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I gave him all the things.
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Didn't he have the entire transcript in front of his eyes?
THE WITNESS, SUPERINTENDENT PLAYIGER: You interrupt the videos where it is
convenient for you.
Q: Let's see the whole video, you know what 4 hours are.
A: I have no problem watching the whole video.
Q: Let's begin, Beilin, put it all over again, all over again. From the beginning
of everything we see now.
(Playing video).
Give him everything, we're showing the whole investigation now.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: We can stop right now. You hear it all over again.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I did not plan to show your honor the entire 4 and a half hours of
the interrogation.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We weren't ready either.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Attorney Rom said that there is a partial presentation of things.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, no. So wait.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now, I built an investigation so that I show segments, ask
questions, you can see 10 minutes forward, backward.
Hon. S. Brody: Answer, in principle that's fine, only when determining the
compounds is the request that they be such that they give, for a minute, a full
picture and not partial retrieval of information, that's all.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem, that was the planning before Attorney Rom bothered us.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we are. For today you worked, researched many hours.
<#5#>
Decision
The discussion of the recording is over. The next evidentiary hearing will be held
tomorrow, February 22, 23 at 8:45 a.m. Recording services will be invited. It was
explained to the defendants present in the courtroom that they were required to
appear. His cross-examination will continue tomorrow
Superintendent Ran Fleisiger's and next Sunday, which is February 26, the
investigation by Attorney Sudri is expected to continue, unless tomorrow.
Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd
Attorney Bar-Oz: There's a problem, Attorney Sudri just sent a message and he's not
even aware of the hearing on Sunday.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On Sunday you are.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The defendants didn't know there was a hearing on Sunday, your
honor said, 'Lock it up,' when Bennett decided there was a deadline, it wasn't.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Good. Further to that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This week I am alone with the children and I also have court
hearings.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second. This is the date that is fixed, I am sorry, it
cannot be changed, it is a day of hearings that we will no longer be able to
determine another case, organize with the agreement of the parties, bring another
witness or do what is necessary, this is the fixed date, it appears in the minutes
and decisions. I lock the seating. Thank you.
-Recording ended-
Recorded by Rebecca Binyamin
7683
8997

05a7d13444764f4a0300000094b92aa3.docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05a7d13444764f4a0300000094b92aa3.docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You

Center-Lod District Court

Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.

Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

So I will ask anyway that within 21 days it be completed.

Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Attorney Bar-Oz: The witness changes his answer 3 times.

Given and announced today 21/02/2023 in the presence of those present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

You might also like