In the interrogations and interrogation actions that were carried out with him afterwards, defendant 1 gave a relatively uniform version of the one he gave in the fourth interrogation, a version full of details, large and small, most of which were previously unknown to the investigators, and some of which was consistent with the rest of the evidence that was collected. This version culminated in the reconstruction (P/5), during which Defendant 1 led the police officers to the scene of the incident and to all the sub-scenes, most of which the investigation team had no prior knowledge of (the scene where the deceased was beaten, the walking routes, the gas station where they purchased the fuel, and the scenes where they discarded their clothes and the items they took from the deceased). To this must be added the fact that during and after the reconstruction, many exhibits were seized that support the version of Defendant 1 (some of which are actual prepared details). For example, the blood of the deceased found on the stone at the scene of the incident and the magazine found at its foot; the security camera footage that documented the defendants' route to the gas stations, the method of refueling and where the coats were hidden; the deceased's pistol that was found at the place and in the manner described by defendant 1; the bag of blood-stained clothes found in the trash; and the keys to the deceased's car that were found in the place he pointed to, together with the keys to the house of defendant 1, which were accidentally thrown away together with the car keys.
Viewing the reconstruction footage leaves no doubt as to the reliability of the details given by the defendant regarding the manner in which the incident occurred, and although throughout the reenactment defendant 1 is seen describing the events without expressing any emotion, with an opaque face and in a cold and detached manner, as if it were a story that has nothing to do with him, he fully cooperated with the investigators, appeared to be very focused and gave a detailed description of the events. While mentioning statements and actions authentically and accurately. It is evident from the reconstruction that defendant 1 remembers the incident in detail, down to the level of the stone next to which the deceased was attacked, the place where they washed their hands, the bush where they hid the coats, the place on the clothesline on which the towel with which he wrapped the gun was hanging, the place where the pistol was hidden, the bins in which the clothes were thrown and their contents when they were discarded, the description of the bag in which the clothes were located and the place where the keys to the deceased's car were discarded. He also gave unique minor details, which are not essential to the occurrence itself, but add to the credibility of his version, such as the matter of the keys and glasses that fell to them at the scene, and the fact that they returned to look for them using the deceased's phone, or his detailed description of the items of clothing that he and defendant 2 were wearing.