The matters in our case are completely different, since in contrast to the aforementioned Ben Uliel case , I held above that the violation of the right to consult in the framework of defendant 2's questioning does not constitute a serious breach that justifies the invalidity of the statement. Moreover, not only was defendant 2 warned and asserted his rights immediately in the post-interrogation (P/12) and in all subsequent interrogations, and thus the defect doctor; However, the next day he was brought to court with a request to extend his detention, where he was represented by Adv. Neil Simon (who still represents him today), and on March 4, 2018, he had already consulted with Adv. Weiss of the Haimi Law Office, whose services he had paid; Beginning with the reconstruction that was conducted on the afternoon of 4 March 2018 (P/13) and throughout all his interrogations and the confrontation that took place after consulting with a lawyer (P/14, P/15 and P/8), he again gave a version similar to the one he had given earlier.
There is also no substance to the argument that defendant 2 was bound by the version he gave to the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, and that he had no choice but to continue to give the same version (and as stated, this argument was rejected in the case law). If defendant 2's version had indeed been given as a result of the trampling of his rights by the investigation team, from the promises made to him and from the threats made to him, and if indeed defendant 2 had shared this with his defense attorneys the very next day, as he claimed and as requested; It is presumed that his defense attorneys would have raised these claims in the hearings for remand extensions, and would have instructed him to raise his claims against the investigation team already in the next interrogation, and to retract the alleged false statements he made.
In light of all the above, I reject the defense's arguments regarding defects in the collection of the statements of defendant 2, and determine that all of his statements are admissible as external statements of the defendant regarding him; and even more so, they are also admissible as statements of a witness in relation to defendant 1. Moreover, I determine that the version of defendant 2 before us, in which he repeatedly claimed that the police trampled on his rights and threatened him, and that as a result he gave his statements, is not credible; And it is not for nothing that this version was raised for the first time in court, after all the investigation material had already been laid out before his eyes, and he understood its significance.