In any event, it was argued that the defendants' statements could not be relied upon as credible, since under the influence of the improper interrogation exercises of the interrogation team, each of them tried to "shift" the blame onto the other. Counsel for defendant 1 argued in this context that even if it is determined that the statements of defendant 2 are admissible, they are not reliable, full of contradictions and lies, and no evidentiary finding can be based on them. It was also claimed that Defendant 1 also gave a false version in which he incriminated Defendant 2 after Detective Hamami told him what Defendant 2 had said during the interrogations.
In this context, counsel for the defendants argued that the accuser ignored the difference between the defendants' statements in the interrogations, and in her summaries did not seek to adopt any of the versions in full, but rather tried to create a story in which she attributed to the two defendants together the most serious details that each of the defendants gave about the other, while ignoring what each of them told about himself; and that beyond the problematic inherent in this argument of the accuser, the combined scenario that she created is unfounded and unfounded.
Therefore, counsel for the defendants requested that the court adopt the version given by the defendants in their testimonies in court, which they claimed constitutes the most reasonable and logical scenario, which is also reconciled and supported by the totality of the additional evidence that was presented.
Considering the scope of the dispute, I will first examine below the arguments of the defendants and their counsel regarding the admissibility of their statements to the police. Later on, I will examine the weight and truth of the defendants' statements to the police; the external evidence relevant to the dispute; and the weight and reliability of the defendants' testimonies to the police. Ultimately, based on the aforesaid examination, I will make findings as to how the incident occurred from the factual aspect.
- The Arguments Against the Admissibility of the Defendants' Statements in Their Interrogations
According to the defendants' counsel, as detailed in detail in their summaries, the interrogations of defendant 2 suffered many flaws as a result of improper interrogation exercises, which led to a severe violation of his right to consult with a lawyer, and therefore all of his statements should be disqualified. They also argued that the invalidation of the statements of defendant 2 by virtue of the rule of judicial invalidation also affects their admissibility as statements of a witness in relation to defendant 1.