It cannot be said that the defendant believed that he was not under investigation, or that he believed that the warning he had been warned was invalid.
See also the words of the researcher A.A. 24 Asher joined this interrogation, and noted that there was no room for further warning since the defendant was in the status of an interrogation after being warned, and was given an opportunity to consult with an attorney.
Beyond what has been said, I find that even if the defendant's right had been violated, this is not a material infringement that goes to the root of free will, and the words he said do not detract from the weight of their admissibility. In this regard, see Criminal Appeal 2333/07 Shlomo Ta'anach v. State of Israel (July 12, 2010), which refers to the Issacharov ruling, in this context:
"The Issacharov rule established a relative evidentiary test, according to which a material violation by the investigative authorities of the right of an interrogee to consult with a lawyer, which goes to the root of the autonomy of free will, and the freedom of choice given to the defendant in the delivery of his confession, is liable to detract from the weight of the defendant's statement in the interrogation. In examining this question, a balance is required between the defendant's procedural rights and the value of fairness in criminal proceedings, and values in the public interest that strive to uncover the truth, fight crime, and protect public safety. The court has discretion to decide the weight of such evidence in the circumstances of each case on its own merits. The balancing act must be done with the proper care, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case... Indeed, there is justice in the argument that police officials must inform the interrogee under warning, without indiscriminateness, of his basic right to consult a lawyer... Moreover, none of them claimed that they actually did not consult with lawyers. The appellants' interrogations continued for a long period of many months, and it is reasonable to assume that in the background of the conduct of the investigations, the appellants consulted with lawyers, and in any event, they were given the full opportunity to do so...".