In contrast to this conduct, it appears that after the police were led to drugs, there was a certain change in Defendant 1's attitude, as a result of which he began to cry in front of Detective Hamami, and asked to tell the investigating officer the whole truth. However, the reasons that led to this change were not fully clarified, and it is not clear whether, as the investigator Lazmi believed, this was the result of the beginning of his cooperation with the police, and the process that defendant 1 underwent after he assisted in bringing the drugs; Is it an internal process that took place in him, which first expresses remorse for his actions and a desire to vent and confess his actions? Or whether, as the accuser believes, it has to do with the fact that he realized in the third interrogation that defendant 2 had given more details than they had agreed in advance (regarding the receipt of the drugs from the deceased), and when he went out with the detectives to lead the way, he saw defendant 2 "with tears in his eyes", he feared that it would precede him and decided to confess to him and thus gain an advantage with the investigators.
Already at the beginning of the fourth interrogation, defendant 1 appeared to have cried before, spoke in a weak voice and sometimes broke his voice, and said that he intended to tell everything that happened in connection with the murder (P/4, p. 1), and at the end of the interrogation he added that he was willing to lead the investigators to the pistol and the other items, and noted in a way that seemed quite credible, that "I am not... I don't want to lie anymore, I made a mistake, I'm willing to pay for it" (ibid., at p. 9, para. 32). It is clear from the content of the statement that even at this stage, defendant 1 did not tell the whole truth, revealed a handkerchief and concealed a handkerchief. Thus, he tried to place most of the responsibility for planning and executing the acts on defendant 2 (so with regard to the idea of going to a remote place, leaving the phones at home and changing clothes, regarding the request of the deceased to leave the gun in the car, regarding the first blow to the deceased's head, the offer to burn the car and dispose of the clothes and other items); claimed that he had been threatened by defendant 2 (this was already from the beginning of the interrogation, see pp. 1-2), even though it was clear that this was a lie; and tried to minimize details regarding the prior planning of the event, since it was presented as an event that he found himself in after defendant 2 surprised him with his actions. However, in general, the version he gave in this interrogation regarding the manner in which the murder was carried out and the events that followed, seems to be very close to the truth.