To summarize the issue of admissibility of sayings
In light of all of the above, I reject the defense's motion to disqualify the defendants' statements to the police, and determine that all statements taken from the defendants during the interrogation are admissible as evidence. Below I will examine the weight of the statements and the veracity of their content, including the defense's arguments in this regard.
- Evaluation of the Defendants' Statements to the Police
Statements of Defendant 1
As stated, defendant 1 was interrogated on suspicion of murdering the deceased from the middle of his first interrogation (P/1). At first, defendant 1 denied all the suspicions directed against him, and he connected himself to the incident for the first time in his fourth interrogation (P/4), after he returned from leading the police to the drugs he had received from the deceased and hidden near his house, and after he spoke with Detective Hamami while they were sitting to smoke, he cried and asked to tell "the whole truth".
It should be noted that from watching Defendant 1's initial interrogations, in which there is no dispute that he lied to the police, his manipulative behavior, his ability to lie easily and his attempt to present himself as someone who was not involved is evident; Thus, for example, in his first interrogation, he is seen sitting with his hands folded, it is evident that he is making an effort to behave naturally, and pretending to be trying to extract details from his memory about questions he was asked. Beyond the many contradictions that arose in these interrogations regarding his actions in the days preceding the incident and regarding the nature of the "help" that he was supposed to give the deceased in connection with the drugs, it was evident that he was adapting himself to the interrogators' questions, and adding details in accordance with the evidence he understood they had, as emerged from those questions.
In his third interrogation as well, Defendant 1's ability to lie with a determined forehead is evident, both to explicit questions from the interrogator to Zami and after he was told that Defendant 2 had said that the deceased had brought him the drugs, he insisted on his version that things did not happen and that Defendant 2 was lying (P/3, pp. 6-7); And only after the interrogator told him that it was a tiny amount of drugs and that he could advance the investigation, refer them to drugs, and perhaps that would reach the person who brought the drugs to the deceased, did he agree and agree to lead the police to the drugs. Even at this stage, when defendant 1 allegedly opened his heart to the interrogator and admitted that he had lied about the drugs, he continued to lie and claimed that the deceased had brought him the drugs in order for them to try to find a buyer for him; He continued in the same pattern of weighing every question and every piece of evidence that was exposed to him and making up lies without batting an eyelid, such as his explanation that he went with defendant 2 to a gas station while they were waiting for the deceased to buy a flashlight and a lighter, because of frequent power outages in his apartment (P/3, pp. 9-10).