The argument regarding the misrepresentation of an ongoing and uniform proceeding that amounts to a single piece is baseless. The defendant knew very well that he was in a different framework, and he tried to propose a continuation of such contacts, something that was clear to him was not a continuation of the case, but that he was here under investigation.
Moreover, the defendant not only knew very well that this was now a police investigation, but also asked that A.A.24 Check with the intelligence personnel about the suggestions he claims were made to him. It follows from this that the defendant knew very well that he was at a completely different stage and in a completely different place, in terms of the investigative stage.
It should be noted that the defendant's counsel argues in paragraph 174 of his summaries that A.T.13 confirms that the interrogation that took place on August 2, 2016 was a continuation of the negotiations that had previously begun on the 2nd floor with the intelligence police, and refers to p. 262, but there is no such alleged confirmation by A.T.13.
During the police investigation, were negotiations for a state-witness agreement?
- A.A. 24, Reply' Mazal Asher conducted the main investigation, was asked in relation to the things that were raised in the framework of the Zuta's claim, And about Mo"m With the defendant, And the return:
"Q. What is the difference between Mo"From to Conclusion of a State Witness Agreement, And the Mo"From this?
- A big difference. First, a state witness is supposed to testify and incriminate others, And that's not what we're talking about here, And secondly,, Contacts with a state witness are made in a framework in which the state undertakes not to make any use of his words, And the changes are in the same framework. Here was a suggestion on the part of the defendant, Come and give up hope"VIII, and to discuss the punishment".
(Pro. of April 23, 2017, p. 192, paras. 22-28).
A.A. 24 testified that in her understanding the negotiations were mainly against the return of the weapons, and that this was not a negotiation in preparation for giving testimony as a state witness, as stated: