I also do not find any substance in the arguments of the defendants' counsel that since this is a person who was first interrogated by the police for a serious offense, the interrogators should have refused to accept his waiver of the right to consult and even forced him to consult with a lawyer. In the Sanker case , it was held in this context that "it is not the role of the police investigators to ensure the representation of an interrogee, but only to bring to his attention his right to consult with a lawyer and not to prevent him from such consultation when he is interested in it." I will note that, as stated, the impression is that defendant 2 consciously and intelligently chose not to consult a lawyer, as part of his attempt to present himself as a normative person, inexperienced in police investigations, who was caught up in an incident that was not in his best interest and had nothing to do with it, who was interested in exposing and telling the truth, and who did not need the assistance of a lawyer, but only the assistance of the police in protecting him and his family.
The Effect of Defendant 2's Failure to Warn in Questioning on the Following Statements
Since I have determined that the failure to warn defendant 2 in the framework of the interrogation with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit does not invalidate his statement there, I will relate to this argument of the defense only for the sake of caution, and more than necessary.
According to case law, the fact that a confession was obtained by improper means does not automatically invalidate any confession that was subsequently made, and in any event, it must be examined whether in the meantime the power of the factors that led to the invalidation of the first confession has expired, and if so, the additional confession will be accepted as evidence (Y. Kedmi, On the Evidence, ibid., at p. 97). In Criminal Appeal 6613/99 Samirak v. State of Israel, 56(3), 529 (2002), it was held that there was no need to decide the question of whether the ISA interrogators used improper means during the interrogation of the appellant, since his confession in the police interrogation, which was collected by a police interrogator without the presence of ISA agents and after he was informed of his rights, can be relied upon; When "in these circumstances, a barrier was created in terms of the conditions for collecting the statement, between the appellant's previous interrogation by ISA agents and the collection of the police statement... Therefore, even if there was any wrongdoing in the interrogation conducted by the ISA prior to the collection of the police confession, it cannot be said that the appellant was under pressure or fear at the time of the collection of the statement, which deprived him of his freedom of will."