Defendant 2: Yes
Commander of the Intelligence Unit: Did you get caught up in this incident? This is the person who got you into trouble, or you report and you are a witness against this thing and tell the truth and save yourself, or you are a murderer. There is nothing, there is no third thing, this or this or that.".
In addition to all of the above, I am of the opinion that the nature and severity of the illegality in our case are not at a higher level for the following reasons: First, the fact that from the moment defendant 2 gave his version, and despite the fact that he was not warned as required by law, it was constantly made clear to him that this version connected him to the murder incident, that a case would be opened against him on suspicion of murder, and that an effort would be made to assist him if he told the truth, but this depends on the degree of his involvement. Second, it is clear from the sequence of events detailed earlier, that the failure to warn Defendant 2 at the beginning of the interrogation was not done deliberately and in order to deliberately infringe on his rights, and it may have stemmed from the lack of clarity that surrounded the beginning of the interrogation, when at first it seemed that Defendant 2 wished to give testimony about the incident and that he himself was not involved in it, and even later when he connected himself to the murder, he insisted that he was not a partner in it. Rather, he was surprised by the actions of defendant 1. Third, defendant 2's connection to the murder was established only after he gave his version of the crime in questioning (P/11, pp. 3-9), and then the entire conversation revolved around his attempts to get assurances from the interrogators about his future, and the attempt of the commander of the Intelligence Unit to persuade him to give a version. Thus, in practice, the stage at which a version was taken from defendant 2, after it was supposed to be clear to the investigators that they had to warn him, was very short. and fourth, the fact that immediately after the end of the interrogation, defendant 2 was interrogated, during which he was warned on suspicion of murder, was deprived of all his rights and again waived his right to consult with an attorney.