Investigator Saban's version before me was not contradicted and his words were found to have tried as much as possible to present a true representation, and even the facts detailed by Mr. Saban above do not lead to the invalidation of the dubbing action, nor are they even close to it.
It is not superfluous to comment beyond what is required at this stage that in its amendment we are not dealing with an incident in which Muhammad and the informant said prepared details of weight, and in the aforesaid circumstances, when the question does not arise whether in one way or another the informant conveyed to Muhammad details about "ready" facts that Muhammad subsequently gave to the investigators or the informant, and the question did not arise from where Muhammad knew how to give to the investigators of this or that detail. Had it been prepared, there would be no room to give real weight to the defense's claims regarding a briefing dubbed by the investigating officer.
00In light of the above, it appears that the defense's argument regarding defects in the operation of the informant should be rejected.
0The second informant - In their oral and written summaries, counsel for defendant 1, Attorneys Simon and Sadeh, argued, inter alia, that a second informant was inserted into Mohammed's cell, which the state concealed until the end of the trial, when it comes to hundreds of investigative pages of the main witness Muhammad that were not revealed. According to him, the state cannot say that a certificate of confidentiality was presented regarding the conversation with the second informant, and according to him, the significance of the non-disclosure of the conversations with the second informant is that the prosecution did not believe that the first confession to the first informant was good enough, otherwise why did they need an additional informant?
According to counsel for defendant 1, the fact that the second informant was concealed stemmed from the fact that the prosecution wanted to prevent the knowledge that there was a second informant, not because of things that were said or not said to the informant, but because the state wanted to prevent the knowledge of the very existence of the informant because it believed that the things that were said to the first informant were not enough.