As for the version given by defendant 2 in the interrogation, he mainly incriminated defendant 1 and tried to reduce his share to a minimum, apparently as part of his attempt to bring about his release and the closure of the case against him. Already at the beginning of the interrogation, when he bargained with the interrogators and asked to know what they would give him if he told what he knew, he lied about his part in the incident by replying to the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit that "I did nothing, I am willing to promise you nothing, I did not do anything, I have nothing to do with it" (ibid., at pp. 1, paras. 4-5, and also at pp. 2, paras. 39 to p. 3, s. 2). Afterwards, too, defendant 2 continued to lie, including blatant lies, such as his statement that he did not know where defendant 1 hid the gun (ibid., at p. 6, paras. 8-14, and see also how he swore to the commander of the district unit that he did not know where the gun was in the interrogation after the interrogation, P/12A, p. 2); This is despite the fact that in the reconstruction, a few days later, he confirmed that he was with Defendant 1 when they hid the gun, and that he knew where and in what manner it was wrapped and hidden.
In addition, and in addition to the fact that he lied by saying that Defendant 1 threatened him (a lie that he now confirms in his testimony, which also arises from the relaxed and friendly manner in which the defendants spoke on the phone before the party), he tried at a certain point to claim that it was not Defendant 1 who threatened him, but other people, since "I am telling the truth, there are people above him, I don't know who these people are"; but after a number of questions about the matter, he acquiesced and confirmed that only Defendant 1 threatened him (P/11, p. 11, s. 23 to p. 12 S. 13). In this context, it should be noted that in his following statements, when he became more and more entangled in his answers, defendant 2 claimed that not only did defendant 1 threaten him after the incident, but he also threatened him during the incident and that he acted under the influence of his threats and fear of the defendant and the gun he held after the incident. Thus, in the interrogation following the interrogation with the commander of the Intelligence Unit (P/12), it is possible to see how his version is being constructed that he was not only afraid of the deceased but also of defendant 1 (ibid., at paras. 203-214, 224-236, 257-263); And in the reconstruction, he had already added to this a concern about the deceased's pistol, which he claimed was held only by defendant 1 (P/13, pp. 17-18).