In other words, the defendant, when he was not a suspect at all, tells the policeman that the violent incident took place between the deceased and him. In this way, the defendant himself clearly connected the act of violence between the two. In any case, this is in fact an admission by the defendant that he did not help the deceased and that there was violence between them. All this, a significant time before the suspicion against him arose, he was informed that he was a suspect, and he was handcuffed (in a second video). He was then asked again and said, "I defended myself," and only from that point can any argument be made about the admissibility of the statements, but not about his first words.
If so, the defendant's statements, prior to he was a suspect, in which he connected himself to an act of violence between him and the deceased, are independent and separate evidence that the defendant is the murderer.
INSS Insight
We have found that out of all the evidence that my colleague detailed, there are four independent and independent evidence, of various kinds, that links the defendant to the act of stabbing the deceased. The recording of the neighbor, the testimony of the technician about the stabbings, the circumstances of his presence at the scene, and the defendant's statements before he was suspected. In other words, the evidence is a testament, reliable testimony, circumstantial evidence and a confession linking the act of violence. Each of the evidence has sufficient weight to convict, or close to it, in the absence of a good answer or a satisfactory explanation, all the more so that when combined together it leads to a binding conclusion. If so, the prosecution's evidence identifies the defendant as the one who committed the murder, unequivocally.
Impression of the Defendant's Testimony
Members detail the difficulties and perplexities in the defendant's testimony.
In most cases, it is correct to base findings of reliability on an examination of the content of testimony, on the witness's ability to deal with the evidence before him, on the compatibility of his explanations with the evidence, etc. As a judge, I do not tend to attach much weight to my subjective impression in real time, and prefer to formulate a position on the question of reliability after careful analysis of the content. However, it should be emphasized that in the testimony of the defendant in question, significant and unusual impression findings emerged, which reinforce the negative finding that my colleague detailed well on the basis of the content findings.