It is more than necessary to add that even if these negotiations could have been called in the manner that the defendant wishes to call him, for his recruitment to be a state witness (and it should be emphasized that not only was this not proven, but the opposite was proven), the negotiations with the intelligence personnel (whoever he may be) ended in failure. It was proven that the negotiations ended with the intelligence personnel meeting with the defendant on July 24, 2016, while it was completely clear to the defendant that the negotiations had been terminated and that "there is no deal and nothing." This, as stated, is more than necessary, since the negotiations that took place were not intended at all to make the defendant a state witness, he was not offered such a proposal, and this was not on the agenda.
In any event, each negotiation was finally concluded a week before the defendant was interrogated by police officers, on August 2, 2016 (P/172).
With regard to the interrogation of the defendant in P/172, which includes his explicit confessions, a view of the interrogation footage on disk P/172 leads to a clear conclusion that the defendant saw this encounter as an integral part of his further interrogation by police interrogators, in the warning given in P/163.
The defendant was interrogated on August 2, 2017 with a warning, he knows very well that there are no negotiations here, and that this is a police interrogation with a warning for all intents and purposes, and after a short break, the defendant is seen as continuing the conduct regarding the investigation in this case, he begins a dialogue on his own initiative, refers to A/163, the printed document, asks questions, raises claims about these and other words, and in practice he leads the continuation of the investigation in the framework of P/172, regarding this affair, and in this framework he gives explicit confessions.
The defendant's arguments regarding the alleged lack of warning in relation to P/172 should also be rejected. The warning was given in the framework of P/163, a short break was taken, and the defendant continues his statement in the framework of that case, and there was no need to warn him again. We are dealing with a break of a few minutes. For the same reasons, the defendant's claims of defects related to the failure to consult an attorney, and the other arguments raised against the admissibility of P/172, should be rejected.