In conclusion, the assessment of the defendants' statements
From all of the above, it emerges that none of the defendants gave a version in his interrogations with the police that it was only the truth and included the entire truth, and in each of the defendants there was a prominent attempt to place most of the blame on the other, or to present the incident as one that began surprisingly as far as he was concerned, at the initiative of the other.
However, it can be said that the version of defendant 1 in the police, especially with regard to the manner in which the incident occurred from the moment of the encounter with the deceased, was consistent, coherent, detailed and anchored in external evidence, and there are signs of truth in it. Admittedly, it is evident from the statements of Defendant 1 that he tried to intensify Defendant 2's part, to reduce his part in the acts and to present himself as someone who was dragged after him, and therefore also gave few details regarding the prior planning of the event; However, it appears that the description of the events he gave from the time he arrived in the forest with the deceased until after the party is generally reliable (except for the issue of threats from defendant 2, which is indisputably a lie).
With regard to planning, it appears that defendant 1 tried to downplay the fact that the acts were preceded by prior planning, since he tried to present himself as someone who was surprised by the actions of defendant 2, and tried to conceal his initiative and dominance in the event. For this reason, defendant 1 apparently initially concealed the attempt to break into the deceased's home, and only at the end of the reconstruction, after the interrogator slammed him that the investigation material showed that they had tried to steal the drugs from the deceased's home, did he confirm it (P/5A, pp. 15-16). It should be noted, however, that the statements of Defendant 1 also indicate to a certain extent the existence of planning for the event (which he attributed mainly to Defendant 2), as appears from the decision to carry out the "drug deal" in an isolated place; from the decision to leave the phones at home; From the decision to change clothes to dark clothes before the event; and persuading the deceased to leave the gun in the car. In any event, beyond these statements of defendant 1, there is additional evidence that testifies to the existence of prior planning, both in the statements of defendant 2 and in the external evidence, as will be detailed below.