"Listen at a discount and we were also short on time, So that it doesn't take time for the informants to contact him and know that he's sitting on a murder case to connect with him, so in this segment I'm already telling him it's a murder case and that's it.".
(pp' 58 For the record, Lines 15-7).
Up Next, The witness noted:
"This is something he does in maneuvers with informants, when a detainee is brought in, so that there will be a connection between the informants and the arrester, because they say to stop, you are sitting on murder, and then the informant immediately turns to him in a murder case to save time of connection and until the suspect decides to tell what he is sitting on".
(pp' 58 For the record, Lines 23 -26).
Later, the witness was further asked whether the purpose behind this statement was to prevent the defendant from being able to maneuver and divert the conversation with the informants in the direction of other suspicions unrelated to the murder that is the subject of the proceedings here. In response to this question, the witness stated that he had no intention of bringing the defendant to such a situation, when the goal was to create a situation that would enable immediate contact with the informants (p. 58 of the transcript, line 28, p. 59 of the transcript, lines 10-18).
It would seem that this issue raises weighty questions regarding the duties imposed on the interrogator and with regard to the detainee's rights in general, especially with regard to a detainee's right to privacy, since it is ostensibly legitimate for a detainee or prisoner to choose not to share with his cellmates the details of the acts attributed to him. It is not inconceivable that the policeman's statements, as they were given to the defendant, revealed to the "detainees" in the detention cell information regarding the nature of the suspicion against the defendant, against his will.
At the same time, despite the aforementioned problematic, the question still arises – how did this conduct of the policeman in itself lead to a significant and severe violation of the fairness of the criminal proceedings and/or the freedom of choice of the defendant, who has the ability to choose whether to confess to the informants or not? Since, even given the aforesaid, the defendant could have continued to adhere to his silence regarding the details of the investigation that was conducted in his case, or at the very least, to provide only partial details. This statement alone does not substantially and significantly impair the rights of the defendant.