Defendant 2's version of the police is less reliable, and there were quite a few contradictions and refutations, but they all have a common line, which is Defendant 2's attempt to extricate himself from any involvement in the incident and to place all the blame on Defendant 1. For this reason, greater caution must be exercised in relying on his statements, and this will be done to the extent that they are corroborated by additional evidence, whether in independent evidence or in the statements of defendant 1.
It should be noted that although each of the defendants decided to cooperate with the investigation team in different circumstances and at different points in the investigation, their statements to the police are full of so many similarities that they can only be explained by the fact that they told the truth about what happened in the incident; And the defendants did not succeed in giving a reasonable explanation for this in their testimonies before us. It should be noted that the claim that Defendant 1 received information from what was happening in the interrogation of Defendant 2 by Detective Hamami was rejected by a credible prison; Moreover, it can be seen that the first confessions of defendant 1 were given consecutively from February 28, 2018 at 23:15 until the next morning (P/4 to P/7), and he gave many more details than defendant 2 gave (defendant 2 was interrogated on the same day until 11:40 p.m.), so that the defense's argument that the confessions were made under the mutual influence of the defendants is not possible.
The similarities between the defendants' versions in the police are striking both with regard to the details they admit to today, such as the attempted break-in into the deceased's home, the arson of the car, and the destruction of evidence after the incident; But more importantly, there are also many similarities regarding the details they deny in their current version. Thus, in their statements, the two defendants described the attack on the deceased by surprise from behind; Both described how, after he fell to the ground, they continued to beat him all over his body with fists, kicks and stones; Both of them said that at a later stage the deceased woke up, and defendant 2 kicked him until he fell silent again (although defendant 2 claimed that he acted on the orders of defendant 1, and that this was first brought up only during the confrontation); Each of the defendants presented in his interrogations injuries caused to him as a result of the assault on the deceased; Both said that they noticed the deceased's gun going to the incident and convinced him to leave it in the car (although each claimed that the other had done so); Contrary to what they say today, both of them even explicitly claimed that they did not check the deceased's condition and did not try to talk to him before they went to buy the fuel and set the car on fire.