In our case - a lawful warning that includes the defendant's position on his full rights, including his right not to say anything, his right to consult with an attorney that his words will be documented and may be used as evidence in court, all of these were said to the defendant and were told to him earlier, on the same day, in an interrogation that allegedly ended about five minutes earlier, and was renewed by the defendant himself. Even though it should have gone through and there was an investigation on another subject.
The previous interrogation (P/163) and this interrogation (P/172), with a 5-minute break between them, are on the same subject, in the nature of the affair, and in the same matter, the two interrogations in the same interrogation room, before the same interrogator, and in a substantive sequence between one and the other. At the beginning of the second interrogation, the defendant begins to speak on his own initiative about things that were recorded in the document documenting the first interrogation.
There is no doubt that the defendant, even in the framework of the second interrogation P/172, was well aware of all his rights.
In general, this conclusion is clearly evident not only from these data, but also from watching the interrogation footage, in which the defendant is seen and heard as someone who fully understands the meaning of his words, is very careful in certain parts to say incriminating things, does not answer many questions in a substantive manner, except in staged points in which he explicitly admits, and also binds himself to knowledge of many details, as will be detailed below.
Claim that the defendant's right to self-incrimination is violated and that it is not known that this is a documented investigation
- It was claimed that the defendant did not know that this was a documented investigation and thus his right to the island was also violated-Criminalization.
This argument, which is inconsistent with P/172, should not be accepted. First, this is a direct continuation of a formal and documented investigation, which is P/163, as expanded above on this matter.