Ofer - Interrogation of Witness, Women
Translation: Marganit W.
Khalida Jarrar, member of the Palestinian Legislature, used her right to remain silent. The prosecutor, however, maintained that “a reasonable person, charged with a crime, who wants to defend herself, would have given a statement.”
(from the minutes of the hearing)
Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Zvi Heilbronn
Prosecutor: Captain Nathaniel Yacov Hai and Lieut. Yeela Zaplawi
Defense: Attys. Mahmoud Hassan and Sahar Francis
Defendant: Khalida Kenaan Muhammad Jarrar, ID 346614138 - Case 3058/15
Two police investigators testified today.
During the investigation we encounter procedures that are well known to us: detainees are first interrogated by the Shabak [GSS]. The Shabak interrogators write down a memorandum which is then transferred to the police interrogator. The detainees are asked by the police interrogator about the memorandum prepared by the Shabak. The policeman writes down a statement and the detainees are supposed to sign it. The statement is then given to the prosecution.
It turns out that there is no signature on the police statement.
Despite Atty. Hassan’s objection, the judge decides that the material presented is a faithful photocopy. This refers to a case that concluded in 2011-12. The judge regrets that the prosecution has not presented the original statement, which is unsigned, but decides to accept the statement nonetheless.
The next witness is police interrogator Sgt. Major Hader Mustafa. He is the one who obtained the statement from Ms. Jarrar. He testifies that the defendant remained silence and refused to sign the statement. He presented her with 16 pages of a computer printout, which included pictures. She refused to look at the pictures. The prosecutor showed three film strips that had been shown to Jarrar during the interrogation.
The attorneys immediately objected to the films, claiming that this is an attempt to sneak in additional material. Atty. Hassan explained that the prosecutor was presenting to the witness films that he (the prosecutor) did not edit, and nobody knows who edited them and how they were obtained. The witness said that the defendant refused to look at the films and that this is included in the police statement.
At this point the prosecutor said what I cited above. I find his interpretation of the right to remain silent very interesting “ a reasonable person would have given a statement.” He brought the films to “show the defendant’s reaction to a specific item shown to her” (in other words, the defendant’s refusal to watcj the films while maintaining her right to remain silent points to her guilt – NA).
The judge decided that the films can be presented but they will not be considered evidence.
In cross-examination about Adham Hasin’s statement of 20.1.13 we heard again about the procedure by which the material reaches the police investigator after the Shabak interrogation.
The investigator showed the suspect a pile of photos, and from his answers to Atty. Hassan it was clear that the investigator had received the photos from the Shabak investigator who then showed them to the suspect in the same order: the full name appears at the bottom of the photo, and this is how the suspect was supposed to identify every one of them.
Even though we have heard many times before about these procedures of extracting statements by the Shabak and by the police, we are still amazed to hear it anew every time in this hall of “justice.”
The next hearing is set for 1.11.15.