Defendant 1's arguments regarding the admissibility of his statements
As noted, Defendant 1 also claimed that his first confession was given after "disappearing" interrogations conducted on him by Detective Hamami, both when he led the detectives to the drugs hidden near his house, and during their conversation in the smoking area; According to him, at this point, Detective Hamami presented Defendant 2's version to him and told him that if he proved that Defendant 2 was lying and that he was the one responsible for the acts, he would be released from detention. According to him, as a result, he gave a false version intended to incriminate Defendant 2 and extricate himself from the case, using the details given to him by Detective Hamami from the interrogation of Defendant 2.
After examining the totality of the evidence, I find this version unreliable and determine that Detective Hamami did not conduct any interrogation of Defendant 1 (let alone "disappeared"), and that he accurately documented the content of the conversation between them in his memo, even though this was done late.
First, as stated, I believed the testimonies of the policemen, including the testimony of Detective Hamami, who categorically denied the claims of Defendant 1, and insisted that there was a small talk between them in the smoking corner, and when Defendant 1 wanted to tell the truth, he immediately called Superintendent Michaeli, who instructed him not to talk to Defendant 1 and to wait for the interrogator. This testimony is well consistent with the testimonies of Superintendent Michaeli and Detective Dor Buskila, and since I have rejected the claims about a well-planned conspiracy, the witnesses' statements that the detectives who came as auxiliary to the investigating unit were not aware of all the details of the investigation are consistent with logic; It is clear that the detectives could not have known the details of Defendant 2's version, and certainly not at the time of his interrogation, as will be detailed below.