From the aforesaid, it emerges that even if defendant 2 was not brought forward during the interrogation that he was suspected of murder, he knew even before that suspicion was beginning to be established against him in connection with the murder of the deceased; He was aware of all his rights as he had been informed shortly before at the beginning of the first interrogation; It seems that he consciously and deliberately chose (already in his first interrogation) to waive his right to consult with a lawyer, as a strategy and as part of the presentation he made to the interrogators, according to which he was a normative, educated person, who was not involved in criminal activity and had nothing to do with the events (a representation that clearly emerges from the recorded interrogation with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit).
In this context, the case law held that in a case where no formal warning was given, but in the circumstances of the case it is clear that the interrogee was aware that he was being interrogated by a person of authority, this will not invalidate the statement; Thus, for example, in a case where a notice was taken with a warning and afterwards additional notices were taken without warning (see Y. Kedmi, on the evidence, ibid., at pp. 92-93). In Criminal Appeal 698/01 Jabali v. the State of Israel [published in Nevo] (22 October 2002), a case similar to our case was discussed, in which conversations took place between the appellant and two police officers, in which he linked himself and another person to the murder and said that he did not confess for fear that there would be no one to take care of his family, when in these conversations he was not warned and the conversations were not recorded but were recorded in memoranda. The Supreme Court accepted the explanation that the conversations were not recorded and the appellant was not warned because there was no interrogation but only conversations following his statement that he could help the police, and that since the appellant was interrogated under warning several times, including earlier that day, he knew very well what he was being arrested for; Therefore, it was held that the absence of the warning does not impair the admissibility of the appellant's words in those conversations.