Moreover, as stated, in the middle of the first interrogation of Defendant 1, which began as open testimony, Investigator Asher Hasson came in (after Investigator Benita received a phone call, left the room and returned with him), and informed Defendant 1 that he was a suspect in the murder, informed him of his rights, and waived his consultation with a lawyer (P/1A, pp. 17, 19 to 18, 34). An examination of the investigation material shows, just as Superintendent Michaeli explained, that at this stage there was no evidence linking Defendant 1 to the murder, except for lies and contradictions in his interrogation and the suspicion that he was at the Paz gas station despite his claim that he did not leave the house. It should be noted in this regard that at that stage, the investigators had only a photograph on the phone from the security cameras of the "Yellow" store at the "Paz" gas station, which included a person who resembled defendant 1 (and in retrospect turned out to be defendant 2) who entered the convenience store, and there was no mention of anyone who purchased or tried to purchase fuel; while the videos from the "Tapuz" gas station in which the defendants were seen purchasing gasoline were downloaded only the next day. After the reconstruction conducted with defendant 1 (see P/69, P/63, P/56A, P/57A). This matter actually testifies to the excessive caution taken by Investigator Hasson in the interrogation of Defendant 1, and in fact refutes the defense's claim that a planned interrogation exercise was conducted in order to present the defendants with a false representation that it was only a drug case. It should also be noted that beginning with this interrogation, Defendant 1 was interrogated in all his interrogations on suspicion of murder, including the third interrogation (P/3) in which the interrogator focused with him on the purpose of bringing drugs only, according to him, in a kind of interrogation exercise.
An examination of the investigative material in the possession of the Investigative Unit also supports the investigators' testimonies, according to which when Defendant 2 was summoned for interrogation he was initially summoned only as a witness, after Defendant 1 brought up his name in the first interrogation as an alibi witness to his actions close to the time of the murder (the interrogation took place between 12:48 and 14:41); Only in his second interrogation (which began at 4:03 p.m.) did Defendant 1 link Defendant 2 to drug offenses, which explains the fact that when Defendant 2's interrogation began (at 6:42 p.m.) he was interrogated on suspicion of drug offenses. The fact that Superintendent Michaeli allowed the parents of Defendant 2 to bring him for interrogation is also consistent with the fact that at that stage he was summoned as a witness only, since if he had been a suspect in the murder, as the defense claimed, it would have been inconceivable that he would have come to the police independently, and it is presumed that the police officers would have immediately gone to arrest him at his place of work.