First , it was argued that in his first interrogation, defendant 2 was interrogated under a warning on suspicion of committing drug offenses only, as part of a deliberate attempt by the investigation team to present him and his parents with a false representation that he was needed for a short interrogation in a minor matter, which did not require legal advice and representation; which led defendant 2 to waive the right to counsel. It was claimed that the investigation team already knew when Defendant 2 arrived at the police station, and certainly at the beginning of his first interrogation, that he was suspected of murdering the deceased, since hours earlier, the investigators had received the security camera footage from the gas stations, in which Defendant 2 was seen; Defendant 1 himself gave the name of defendant 2 as someone who was with him on the night of the incident; And as Investigator Benita noted, the aforementioned suspicion was strengthened during the interrogation in light of the contradictions discovered in Defendant 2's version and the bruises that were seen by him.
It was argued that this was an improper interrogation exercise, intended to prevent Defendant 2 from maintaining his right to remain silent and consulting with an attorney; And since defendant 2 and his parents did not know the true suspicions attributed to him, they could not properly consider the use of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
Second , it was claimed that the investigation team deliberately made use of "disappearing" interrogations, in which the interrogators conducted a substantive dialogue with Defendant 2, which was not deliberately documented. The defense referred mainly to Defendant 2's conversation with Investigator Malichi, while Investigator Benita went to update the Commander of the Intelligence Unit and Superintendent Michaeli, following which Defendant 2 asked to speak with the Commander of the Intelligence Unit and tell "the truth." It was claimed that this conversation was not recorded except for what was stated in the memorandum of Investigator Malichi, from which it can be understood that he told defendant 2 that they knew that he was connected to the murder, but despite this he was not warned on suspicion of murder and was not informed about the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, and on the other hand he was told that the best for him was to tell the truth.