Indeed, on P/163 there is a handwritten correction play as aforesaid.
The defendant is well aware that at this stage this is a police investigation, and that what was said in the framework of the intelligence investigation, including in relation to the negotiations for the return of the weapons, is no longer relevant to this stage of the investigation. The defendant himself says that they began a previous interrogation, that "they" asked him about the weapons, and he detailed that they were young men named Moshe and Guy from the intelligence (P/172B, p. 20, questions 17-24) and later on the interrogator Mazal Istrakhan (A.A. 24) Asher joins the interrogation and clarifies to the defendant that what happened "with them", i.e., the intelligence personnel, is no longer relevant to the current interrogation process (P/172B, p. 34, paras. 1-19).
- P.24 testifies that she was presented and presented as the head of the interrogation department, was explained to the defendant, and she assumes that he understood that they were investigators, and that the others were intelligence and there was a difference (Prov. p. 190, paras. 15-16 and 23-24).
This is clearly offended by P/172, in which the defendant asks her to question the intelligence personnel about their proposal, i.e., he knows that he is not in front of the intelligence personnel, and that he is under police interrogation for all intents and purposes.
- P.24 describes what happened during the interrogation P/172 that "in general he offered to continue contacts that he claimed our intelligence personnel had started with him, and to try to advance those contacts that would eventually lead to the surrender of the weapons in exchange for a reduction in his sentence" (Prov. p. 190, paras. 6-7). This description is accurate - both in relation to the fact that this was an initiative of the defendant in the framework of P/172, and in relation to the content of the initiative, a relief against the surrender of the weapons. Not testimony in the framework of a state witness against accomplices.
From what has been said, it appears that this is not a continuation of the negotiations that took place in the intelligence interrogation rooms, an "investigation" which, as stated, did not refer to a "state witness".