A view of the video footage of the interrogations (beginning with the interrogation after the interrogation – P/12B) shows that in addition to the contradictions and the changes in the version according to the questions asked, the defendant was seen crying two times many times, crying that sometimes seemed fabricated and unreliable, as part of the presentation he tried to present to the interrogators that he was a normative person who was caught up in an incident that was not in his best interest. Thus, in P/12B, the ability of defendant 2 to move from crying and speaking in a weak voice and with bowing his head, to raise his voice and to correct the interrogator in an assertive manner is striking; In the reconstruction (P/13B), defendant 2 is seen crying while lying and claiming that defendant 1 held the gun in such a way that he felt threatened (P/13, p. 19). When the general impression that arises from all of his interrogations, including the many fragments of crying, is one of unreliability, and it is not for nothing that the interrogator called this to Zami as "crocodile tears" (P/14, para. 185).
It should be noted that during the confrontation, in addition to the crying that accompanied his version, Defendant 2 used a different tactic, apparently with the intention of strengthening his credibility in the eyes of the interrogators, and he began his remarks with an aggressive "speech" to Defendant 1, in which he warned him that he intended to tell the whole truth, so that the interrogators would discover that he was lying and that he should reconsider his version. Already at this stage, defendant 2 began to lie, since as part of the "truth" he intended to tell, he mentioned that "you threatened me and you threatened my family that if I spoke you would murder them and you would kill me" (P/8A, pp. 21-22); and then he began to raise his voice, shouted and spoke aggressively, all while allegedly asking defendant 1 questions. But in practice, he does not allow him to answer. At the stage when he gave his version during the confrontation, Defendant 2 appeared to recite a little, as if he had prepared for it in advance; But when the interrogators began to make it difficult for him and confront him with contradictions or illogicence in his version, he began to pull out answers and get involved in many contradictions and lies, he began to cry and shout at times, and at certain points he literally screamed and lost control (for example, when confronted with the illogic, claiming that defendant 1 had both threatened him with the gun and also let him hold the gun – P/8B was counted 01:08:30; at the stage when defendant 1 accused him accused him that he had "screwed shots" at the party, In contrast to his false and evolving version of alcohol consumption at the party – the name of the meter is 01:10:00; Or at the stage when the interrogators confronted him with the fact that he knew what Defendant 1's plan was and was not surprised – there in the counter 01:27:08).