In light of all the above, the defense's argument that the conversation with Investigator Malichi was an "invisible interrogation" whose content is unknown, and during which the interrogators led Defendant 2 to confess to the murder and incriminate Defendant 1; Defendant 2's version of events that preceded the interrogation with the commander of the Special Operations Unit is also rejected.
The Claim Regarding the Lack of Warning and Improper Measures Taken in Questioning with the Commander of the Intelligence Unit
There is no dispute that Defendant 2 was not warned, was not informed that he was suspected of murder and was not informed of his rights during the recorded interrogation with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, as well as in the conversation that took place earlier with Investigator Malichi. An examination of the totality of the material related to this interrogation shows that although I have found the investigators' testimonies to be credible, according to which Defendant 2 was not suspected of murder until the stage when he told the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit about his involvement in the incident; Thus, the commander of the Intelligence Unit and Investigator Malichi should have warned him of suspicion of involvement in the murder and made him assert his rights, at least when he began to tie himself to the incident during the interrogation.
It is possible to accept the interrogators' explanations that at the beginning of the interrogation it was not clear to them that Defendant 2 was involved in the murder of the deceased, and that they believed that this was a witness who had information about the identity of the murderer and was afraid to tell about it. As noted, although Investigator Malichi told Defendant 2 that they had data linking him to the murder and that there was a "guillotine" over his neck, at this stage the investigative unit did not have evidence linking him to the murder, and all Malichi knew at the time was that Investigator Benita was under the impression that he had not told the whole truth in his interrogation. At this point, Defendant 2 asked Investigator Malichi if he would protect him and his family if he told the truth, the interrogator asked him what truth it was, and Defendant 2 replied that he was a witness to the murder, and that only if he received defense would he tell the whole truth. Therefore, the explanation that Defendant 2 was not warned at the beginning of the recorded interrogation because it was believed that he was only a witness to the murder is not unreasonable.