Although Investigator Malichi told Defendant 2 during the conversation that they knew that he was not telling the truth and that data had been collected linking him to the murder and that he was suggesting that he tell the truth, this does not testify that at that time Defendant 2 was suspected of murder, and this does not change the evidentiary situation that existed at the time, as detailed above. Moreover, this also contradicts the defense's arguments regarding the misrepresentation presented by the investigators to defendant 2, as if he was suspected only of drug offenses. In this regard, it is possible that, as Superintendent Michaeli suggested, Investigator Malichi, unlike the other policemen, already suspected that Defendant 2 was connected in some way to the murder (inter alia, in light of Investigator Benita's statement that he did not tell the truth during the interrogation); It is possible that, as Investigator Malichi explained, he also did not think that they had anything in their hands that connected Defendant 2 to the murder, and said these things simply "as food for thought", so that if Defendant 2 knew anything about the murder, he would later tell the truth about what he knew. In any case, it is clear that this was a conversation that was made at random, as a "local initiative" by Investigator Malichi in response to the question of Defendant 2; In any event, even if Malichi told Defendant 2 that they had collected data linking him to the murder, this was not an improper interrogation exercise.
Moreover, contrary to what is claimed in the defense summaries, defendant 2 did not claim in his testimony that Investigator Malichi told him what to say during the interrogations, and did not lead him to confess to the murder with promises that he would be released; rather, he claimed that Malihi, together with other interrogators, threatened him, saying that he was going to prison for life and that he had a guillotine over his head. In this context, it should be noted that the allegations regarding threats (as well as the allegations regarding the introduction of words by Defendant 2) were not at all hurled at Investigator Malichi in his cross-examination and were first raised in the testimony of Defendant 2; Throughout the course of the proceeding, counsel for defendant 2 clarified that he did not make "trivial" claims, but rather that the argument was a violation of defendant 2's right to counsel. It should also be noted that I do not see in Malichi's words to Defendant 2 that "when there is a sword on a person's neck and he understands it, the best thing for him is to tell the truth, and according to the investigative material we have, there is a seven-meter-high guillotine on his neck and not a small sword", because of a threat that constitutes an improper means, which deprives the interrogee of his ability to choose whether to preserve his right not to incriminate himself.