From the testimonies of the intelligence personnel and from the testimony of the defendant himself, it emerges that the parties, including the defendant, make a clear distinction between the types of interrogations and the types of authorities, and it is clear that the defendant was the initiator and leader of the form of the interrogation, and many statements regarding "assistance" on his behalf regarding the return of the weapons and the receipt of a "favor" on their behalf, are related to the return of the weapons and nothing more. The defendant was not asked to confess, incriminate or testify.
The clear conclusion from the above, including the words of the defendant himself, is that at the stage of the defendant's intelligence investigations, no negotiations for a state-witness agreement took place, the defendant did not think so, there was only talk of returning the weapons, nothing was promised, no agreement was formulated, the defendant himself did not deny his ability to return the weapons, but rather managed to do so."For this.
I find the testimonies of the intelligence investigators to be credible and their claims regarding the conduct of an investigation without the requirement of incrimination or a demand for testimony, or at all in connection with the investigation of the affair or the accomplices, as credible and correct.
The aforesaid stands in complete contradiction to the defense's arguments regarding negotiations for the defendant to be a state witness. These arguments lack a factual basis and must be rejected.
It should be said that the above is sufficient to bring about the rejection of the claim of inadmissibility of P/172, an argument that is based on an alleged connection between the investigation by the intelligence personnel and the investigation by the police interrogators on August 2, 2016.
The argument for the inadmissibility of P/172 is based on the claim that in the framework of the dialogue with the intelligence personnel, there were negotiations with a state witness. Since this argument is rejected, the basis for the argument that in light of the connection of the investigation P/172 to the process with the intelligence personnel, the investigation is inadmissible.