In addition, defendant 2 claimed in his testimony that only after the commander of the unit entered the room, did the interrogators begin to tell him that his partner had "opened up to him", that he would say that defendant 1 had done everything, threatened him, and that he had no choice but to be dragged after him, and promised that if he did so, he would be released home. This argument stands in complete contradiction to the testimonies of the policemen, who, as stated, made a credible impression on me, and even contradicts the recorded documentation of the interrogation by the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit. Immediately at the beginning of the recording, Investigator Malichi is heard approaching Defendant 2, introducing him to the Commander of the Intelligence Unit and asking him to tell him what he had told him earlier when he told him to tell the truth, and Defendant 2 asked the Commander of the Intelligence Unit if he would protect his life and his family (P/11, p. 1, 14-20). It is clear from the aforesaid that as Malichi, the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, and the other witnesses testified, Malichi called the commander of the Intelligence Unit, and as soon as they entered the room, the recording was played; and that there was no prior conversation between the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit and Defendant 2 prior to the recording.
Moreover, in response to questions from the court and the prosecutor, defendant 2 had difficulty explaining in his testimony what incorrect details he gave in his statements under the influence of the interrogators in that "disappeared questioning"; this is in addition to general statements that they told him to drop everything on defendant 1 and to say that defendant 1 threatened him. In fact, regarding all the things that defendant 2 said in his statements and which he now claims are not true, he replied in his testimony that the interrogators did not tell him to say them, but that he himself made them up in order to give credibility to his story. This is the case with regard to his statement that defendant 1 planned everything and detailed the plan to him (pp. 477-479); regarding his statement that he kicked the deceased (p. 472); and regarding the use of a sock to beat the deceased (p. 478). It should also be noted in this context that at the time prior to the interrogation of Defendant 2 by the Commander of the Intelligence Unit (which began at 8:40 P.M.), Defendant 1 had not yet confessed to the murder and had not connected himself to the incident, but only agreed to lead the investigators to the drugs; So the investigators had no information about how the murder was carried out, and even if they wanted to, they could not tell defendant 2 what to say in order to "drop" the murder on defendant 1.