It is also worth mentioning that from the content of the interrogation it emerges that Defendant 2 was the one who decided to give a limited version in which he placed the full blame on Defendant 1, and only after hearing his version, did the interrogators try to encourage him to give these things during the interrogation as well and to accuse them of Defendant 1. This speaks for itself, and it is clear from the interrogation that there is no basis for the claim that the interrogators were the ones who created his version for Defendant 2 and instructed him what to say in order to incriminate Defendant 1 and extricate himself from the case; And as stated, they had no information about how the incident occurred before defendant 2 gave his version of the interrogation.
In light of all of the above, I reject the defense's arguments that during the interrogation of defendant 2 by the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, improper means of threats or promises were taken against him, which led him to confess and incriminate defendant 1; I also reject the defense's petition to disqualify the defendant's statement in questioning (P/11), due to the lack of warning and the violation of his right to counsel.
The Argument Regarding the Lack of a Genuine Warning in the Interrogation of Defendant 2 After the Interrogation
As noted, shortly after the end of the interrogation, Investigator Malichi began to take the second statement of Defendant 2. At the very beginning of the interrogation, the interrogator read the contents of the warning to him as follows (P/12A, p. 1, paras. 20-41):
"Investigator Malichi: I am about to interrogate you on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a crime and intentionally causing death by... You murdered the deceased together with another... In the area of the city of Sderot.
Defendant 2: I didn't murder
Investigator Malichi: Okay, okay, okay, you'll explain, I'll ask you, I'll tell you, that's the title of the suspicion. You have the right not to say anything, your words will be recorded and may be used as evidence in court, but know that a court can take into account your silence. You have the right to consult with an attorney prior to your interrogation, subject to the restrictions set forth in the law, and you have the right to consult with a public defender if you are legally entitled to do so. Question- Do you understand what I'm interrogating you about? You understand?