When asked how he knew what to tell the investigator to Zami during the interrogation, he replied that Detective Hamami told him what Defendant 2 had said in the interrogation, when some of the things were false and some were based on things that had happened, and Hamami told him , "Tell him that he did it... and you will place the blame on him" (p. 362, paras. 19-27). He further claimed that the matter of the conversation with Detective Hamami had already come up at the hearing of the remand extension by the lawyer who represented him, since she asked him why he confessed and asked what happened during the interrogations, and he explained to her that Detective Hamami had told him that he could go home "if I said A, B, C" (p. 364, paras. 1-2).
In his cross-examination, Defendant 1 clarified that Detective Hamami "came and helped me build, more or less, what happened there in order to get him out of the guilt... so that they would have someone to convict" (p. 398 Q. 6-9); but he did not tell him to confess or confess to something he did not do, but told him that "your partner opens up to you and takes everything out on you, come, save yourself, say he did everything, say this, say this, say this, say this and you will go home" (p. 399 Q. 4-6). He also claimed that he lied in his interrogations because he understood from the conversation with Detective Hamami that it would help him get out, and that he went into small details when he lied in order to make it appear credible (pp. 374-375). According to him, the interrogator Lazmi is indeed "an investigator with supreme grace, I also know him from Sderot... But no interrogator will succeed in a second in getting a person to come and confess to a murder case if there is no intention before that" (p. 402, paras. 16-20), and explained that Detective Hamami made sure to always be around him and throw him comments about what defendant 2 said during the interrogations.
Testimonies of police officers
Investigator Ofer Benita , who backed up Defendant 2's first statement, testified that he interrogated him because his name came up in the interrogation of Defendant 1 in connection with a drug deal with the deceased, and therefore he was interrogated on suspicion of committing drug offenses. According to him, at the end of the interrogation he identified many contradictions in Defendant 2's version and noticed bruises on his hands and the back of his head, and therefore told him that he was not telling the truth and that he should think about it (pp. 67-68).