From the aforesaid, it appears that the two defendants gave an incriminating version in their statements in which they linked themselves to the attack of the deceased together, in a brutal manner, with many blows, including after he regained consciousness for a moment, thus causing his death; Both of them even claimed in their statements that they did not check the condition of the deceased before they decided to set him and the car on fire. The fact that the defendants gave such an incriminating version, not only each other, but each of them himself, without giving any reasonable explanation for this, testifies in itself to the fact that their version in the police regarding the manner in which the deceased's death was caused is true.
In this context, it should be noted that although Defendant 2 claimed that Defendant 1 first hit the deceased with a stone that was inserted into the sock in which he was equipped in advance, and Defendant 1 vehemently denied this; However, the investigation material supports the fact that the version of defendant 2 in this matter, which he raised on his own initiative already in questioning with the commander of the Intelligence Unit (P/11), and which he consistently reiterated in all his statements, is the more reliable of the two. The reliability of Defendant 2's version regarding the sock stems mainly from the fact that it includes a well-known detail that was not known to the defendants (while even in his testimony in court Defendant 2 did not claim that this detail was told to him by any of the interrogators), according to which in the area where the defendants put the deceased in the car, a sock was found with human blood stains on it. It should also be noted that later on defendant 2 stated that it was a white sock, and that defendant 1 told him that he had lost it (P/14 at paras. 30-46), data that is also consistent with the prepared details regarding the sock – a white sock that remained in the area where the deceased's car was parked in the forest.