Another striking example of defendant 1's ability to lie without batting an eyelid arises from his statement in the framework of his main testimony, where he claimed that during his conversation with Detective Hamami in the smoking area, Hamami told him, inter alia, that if he proved that defendant 2 was lying, he would be able to be released, since "you helped us bring the drugs, you helped us bring the gun" (pp. 362, paras. 16-17, and these words were repeated in paras. 26-27 as well). However, these words are false on the face of it, and could not have happened in reality, since Defendant 1 sat with Detective Hamami in the smoking area at 10:15 P.M., about an hour before he gave his first confession to the interrogator to Zami, and about two hours before the reenactment was conducted with him, during which he led the officers to the gun.
In view of the above, I reject Defendant 1's version regarding unfair influence on the part of Detective Hamami, which led to his confession to the police.
In the margins, it should be noted that in the framework of the summaries of counsel for defendant 1, an additional argument was raised according to which the first interrogations of defendant 1 (from daughter 1 to daughter 7) were carried out for about 18 hours, when he was tired and exhausted, and this fact, together with his attempt to please the interrogators and please them, influenced the content of his statements (see pp. 57-58 for the summaries). This claim was not at all claimed or alluded to by defendant 1 in his testimony, he did not claim that fatigue or distress affected the content of his version, but rather presented himself as someone who was well aware of what was happening in the interrogations, and claimed that he deliberately acted to give a false version of his statements in accordance with the information given to him by Detective Hamami. This is sufficient to reject this argument of the defense. It should be noted that this is one of many examples of new allegations that were not made by the defendants or were not hurled at the cross-examinations of the witnesses, and were first raised in the summaries of counsel for defendant 1.