(P/7E, p. 1, some of the words were not transcribed but are well heard in P/7F).
From these words it is clear that shortly after his confession, Defendant 1 was grateful to Detective Hamami, who did not want to talk to him about the incident at all, but only gave him the courage to confess; and that on that occasion he did not mention anything similar to his current version regarding the fact that Detective Hamami gave him details of Defendant 2's version.
And third, in the testimony of defendant 1 regarding the conversation with Hamami, as in all his testimony before us, manipulation and lack of credibility were evident. As will be detailed below, Defendant 1 twisted and twisted in his cross-examination and found it difficult to explain why, if he acted under the influence of Detective Hamami's words regarding the content of Defendant 2's testimony, and if he thought he had a chance of being released, he gave a version that incriminated him himself, and why he allegedly gave false details that could exacerbate his involvement in the incident as he claims it today (for example, that he beat the deceased so hard that Defendant 2 was forced to separate them). who hit the deceased with stones, that the deceased shouted during the beatings, etc.).
Moreover, Defendant 1's claim that the conversations in which Detective Hamami gave him excerpts of Defendant 2's statements in the interrogations began even before they left for a vote on the location of the drugs, is not possible in view of the timetables. As stated, Defendant 1 went out with the detectives to vote on the location of the drugs at around 8:00 P.M., and at that point (until 8:12 P.M.) Defendant 2 was still in the first interrogation, in which he denied and did not say anything incriminating against Defendant 1; and the interrogation of Defendant 2 with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, in which he gave an incriminating version for the first time, began only at 8:40 P.M. If so, the claim of defendant 1 that he was given details about him before and during the transportation that defendant 2 said about him, is false and unfounded on the face of it.