In our case, the defendant tried to present to his cellmates a different version that he was allegedly suspected of involvement in a drug affair. However, in view of the fact that the informants had heard that this was a murder case, they refused to accept his version and even expressed anger at his conduct and his original claim regarding his involvement in drug offenses. Finally, the defendant did indeed give a version of the incident that is the subject of the proceeding here, and more, he confessed to another offense that is not directly related to the murder case.
- Another Question Raised by the Learned Defense Attorney, related to the proceedings before dubbing and the defendant's waiting outside the detention cell. According to the defense attorney, From the course of events, It can be seen that the defendant arrived at the station in Hadera at the time of the 21:35. He waited outside the detention cell for about half an hour, constantly listening to the informants and the conversation that took place between them. Among other things, The defendant understood that those detainees were detainees of theNational Insurance Institute (See - pp' 487 For the record, Lines 17 -21 The Defendant's Testimony). As I mentioned earlier, I did not find any basis for the claim that I waited outside the detention cell for a period of about half an hour. The defendant arrived at the station and was immediately put into the cell. At the same time, It is not impossible that upon entering the cell, He was exposed to a conversation that took place between the informants right around the same time that he arrived at the station and was put into the cell. At the same time, I cannot accept the argument that, In this regard (And in this matter alone, it is a matter of waiting outside the cell) Hidden is a missed interrogation exercise, As the defense attorney sought to teach us.
- After I have discussed the background of the dubbing process, All that remains to be examined is - Admissibility of the Defendant's Statements, As delivered during the dubbing itself. In this context, The questions on the agenda are as follows: Has the conduct of the informants described, which is described, crossed the line between a legitimate trick and a prohibited trick?? Was improper means used in a way that led to the denial of the defendant's ability to choose whether or not to use the immunity from self-incrimination?? Was the confession obtained unlawfully and substantially violated the defendant's right to a fair trial??
- Researcher Huli noted, Because he was the one who turned on the recording and made sure that the recording station was working. He did not listen in real time to the dubbing process and was only exposed to the transcription, According to him,. The Question, If the witness listened to the dubbing tape at a later stage, remained open and I did not even find an answer to it in the arguments of the parties. Ltd.' 46 For the record, In the testimony of the interrogator Huli, It can be understood that he did not listen to the dubbing in real time. On the other hand, Researcher Ben Lulu, He confirmed in his testimony before us, That he didn't listen to the dubbing tape, Neither the first nor the second, and he was only exposed to the transcription of these tapes (pp' 123 and- 124 For the record).
In this context, see Exhibit P/60; A report on the completion of the investigation that Investigator Huli wrote at the request of the State Attorney's Office, which indicates that he was the one who prepared the dubbing room in the detention cell inside the police station in Hadera, and that he was the one who activated the recording. He did not listen to the conversation, when he said that another policeman named Gil was the one who listened to the conversation, while sitting at the listening station. The witness noted that he prepared the station, prepared the detention cell, activated the station, and then another interrogator went to listen from the position in question; At that time, Huli left the place. (p. 27 of the transcript, lines 10-16).