The claim that the interrogation was "disappeared" by the interrogator Malichi
I did not find any substance in the defense's argument that the removal of Defendant 2 from the interrogation with Investigator Benita and his transfer to the supervision of Investigator Malichi was done deliberately, in order to conduct an "invisible" interrogation that would not be documented, in which Defendant 2 would confess to the murder.
Superintendent Michaeli, the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, and Investigators Benita and Malichi explained credibly and plausibly that Investigator Benita went to update his commanders on the progress of the investigation and the suspicions that arose in him during the interrogation of Defendant 2, and that Investigator Malichi was only asked to supervise Defendant 2 until he was finished. As appears from the testimony of Investigator Malichi (and from the memorandum, which, as stated, was quoted on various occasions), he had no intention of questioning Defendant 2, but rather he responded to Defendant 2's question about what would happen to him; In practice, defendant 2 did not tell him anything except that he knew who murdered the deceased, and that he would tell the truth if he received a defense. In this state of affairs, there was no obligation to record the conversation or to warn Defendant 2 in the framework of it, the investigation team could not have expected that Defendant 2 would seek to provide Investigator Malichi with information about the murder, and therefore it was sufficient that Investigator Malichi recorded the conversation in a memorandum shortly afterwards. In this context, the ruling held that "the obligation to document the criminal investigation... does not apply to hallway conversations that are not part of the ongoing investigation. It is inconceivable that a recording device would accompany the interrogator wherever he goes, only in case he meets the interrogee in the corridor and exchanges a few words with him" (Criminal Appeal 9808/06 Sanker v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (July 29, 2010) (hereinafter – the Sanker case)).