Below we will examine the evidence in relation to the petty claim, which relies on the claim of the existence of negotiations for a state-witness agreement.
Was this a negotiation in preparation for a "state witness" agreement?
- The "Types" The Defendant's Interrogations for Two - Intelligence Investigations, and police investigations. This division is essential for clarifying the defendant's minor claim, For his claims rely on an alleged blurring of the line between the two. This is not an artificial division, but rather an essential one for understanding the sequence of events and examining the normative framework that must be applied and applicable to the defendant's statements, Examining the Framework in which These Sayings Were Uttered.
This is not a "normal" case in which a suspect in a criminal incident is interrogated as part of a regular police proceeding to clarify his part, but rather an incident with security aspects related to the stolen weapon, both by the fact that it is a weapon that for obvious reasons must be returned to be returned, and because the particular weapon that was stolen also included a unique weapon. His return was of particular security importance. In this regard, see the words of an officer in the Ordnance Section (P/27, p. 2), which details the Matador missile, and the words of A. T.33, the intelligence coordinator: "What interested us was to return the weapons, since we had reached a tiebreaker" (Prov. p. 124, paras. 4-5).
This is a case of theft of certain weapons of security importance, and therefore at the initial stage, and in order to reduce the real threat created by the theft of such an important weapon, the defendant was interrogated in what was defined as an intelligence investigation, the purpose of which was to clarify the state of the weapons and whether it could be returned and allay the fear that it would be transferred to hostile elements.
The intelligence interrogations were conducted in secret, and the Memorandum of Understanding (P/167) indicates that the defendant was interrogated by intelligence personnel on 18 July 2016, 19 July 2016, and 24 July 2016. The interrogations were carried out by intelligence personnel only, by prosecution witnesses 33, 34, 35. The investigation in dispute is dated August 2, 2016, which was conducted by police investigators and was part of a regular police investigation. This controversial investigation, which was carried out about a week after the last intelligence investigation, is not part of the intelligence investigations, nor did any intelligence personnel participate in it.