Counsel for the defendant raised a minor argument according to which the defendant's statements, which he defined as "questioning" on August 2, 2016 (and subsequently submitted - a CD that includes a video (P/172) and a transcript (P/172/B)) were made in the framework of negotiations for him to be a state witness. Therefore, according to him, these statements of the defendant are inadmissible and cannot incriminate him, and also that improper interrogation methods were used, there was no proper warning, and that the police conducted an investigation without informing the defendant that he was being interrogated in a documented interrogation.
We will precede the latter, and we will turn in this matter to what was stated in the defendant's summaries that "the defendant's confessions were obtained by improper means of interrogation, which reached the point of denying the defendant's free will, or by unfair and improper means that the duty of justice requires their disqualification, when the police diligently conducted its investigations while making sure that he was not informed that he was being interrogated in a documented interrogation, while presenting a performance that nothing was recorded in writing. and inform him that his words will be used as evidence in the trial, in the absence of a warning, and while denying the defendant's proper representation." (This is the case in paragraph 64 of the defendant's summaries).
According to the defendant, he was interrogated several times, sometimes informally, a kind of negotiation took place in which he offered his help in returning the weapons, and it was claimed that the negotiations were carried out without lawful warning, without consulting with a lawyer and without registration and documentation, and the defendant said things that could incriminate him, in the absence of exercising his right to self-incrimination Therefore, his statements, which were made in the framework of the above investigations, are inadmissible against the defendant in court.