I accept the prosecution's argument, according to which "Uri Resch invented the same Avi Stavitzky who did not exist and was not created."
This is the place to address the defense's arguments regarding the statement of defendant 1 - P/321, which was given on the day of his arrest - 30.10.2000. According to the claim, defendant 1 was not informed of his right to consult with an attorney, and therefore, and in accordance with the precedent established in criminal appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor (unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on May 4, 2006), the statement should be disqualified as evidence acting in accordance with the defendant's obligation.
The prosecution disagrees with this approach, and claims that the interrogators of Defendant 1, Yoram Sigman and Zvi Kasman, were not asked any question in their cross-examination regarding the violation of the right to consult an attorney. Investigator Sigman was asked only one question relating to the fact that in the statement of Defendant 1 nothing was recorded regarding the giving of notice regarding the right to counsel.
I am of the opinion that the defense's arguments regarding the violation of defendant 1's right to counsel should be rejected, because the defendant was aware of this right, as is evident from his testimony in court: "I asked them to speak to my lawyer and they told me: 'Don't worry, you will still have enough time to talk to the lawyer,' and so several times during the day, they dragged this matter until we reached night. And at night they said to me: 'Well, sir.' In fact, I was informed that I was going to be taken to a police officer to ask for my arrest..." (p. 3948 of the transcript, paras. 1-5).
As determined in Criminal Appeal 9956/05 Assaf Shai v. State of Israel (unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on November 4, 2009):
"... It appears that the interrogator's refusal to inform the appellant of his right to consult with a defense attorney, in and of itself, did not create a significant violation of the appellant's autonomy of will and freedom of choice in the delivery of his statement, in view of the fact that at the beginning of the receipt of the notice... The appellant asked on his own initiative to consult with a defense attorney, and hence he was actually aware of the right to counsel, even though he was not warned about it... As to the jurisprudential doctrine for invalidating evidence that was unlawfully presented, it appears that even according to the aforesaid doctrine, the failure of the police investigator to inform the appellant of the right to counsel does not lead to the invalidation of the statement. This is in view of the fact that the appellant was warned at the beginning of the collection of the statement regarding the right to remain silent, and as aforesaid, he was aware in practice of his right to consult an attorney; and also in view of the fact that it was not claimed that the said omission of the police investigator stemmed from malicious intent, in a manner that could have increased the severity of the violation."