On the other hand, Defendant 1's denial in his statements to the police about the acquisition of a sock is consistent with the general line of his testimony – i.e., the denial of any detail that could connect him to the prior planning of the event, and his version that he was involved in an event that was apparently planned by Defendant 2. In this context, it should be noted that Defendant 1's reactions in his interrogations regarding the sock were strange and did not convey much credibility. And so, while watching the reenactment video, Defendant 1 was asked for the first time if he had brought a sock with him from home, but he did not seem surprised by the strange and seemingly innocent question and seemed to understand where it was going, since he immediately tried to shift the "blame" to Defendant 2's shoulders, claimed that he might have taken a sock from his house, and that he did not follow up on his actions because "I didn't think he was planning to do anything that I would have to remember"; and after a few minutes of watching the reenactment, He suddenly said that he did not remember how defendant 2 had beaten the deceased (P/7B, appointed 18:55 onwards). In addition, a white sock was also found in the bag of clothes seized in the trash that the defendants had thrown, and defendant 1's response to this in the reconstruction was that he did not know whose sock it was because he was wearing black socks (P/5A, p. 10, s. 3); And in the interrogation that followed the reconstruction, he developed this version and said, "And if I'm not mistaken, there was one of his [Defendant 2's] socks there. It could be that it was my sock from home because he changed my clothes" (P/7 at 132-144).
As for the rest of defendant 2's version regarding the existence of meticulous prior planning by defendant 1, it can be said that this is a version that reflects the truth, despite defendant 1's sweeping denial, since it has been found to have reinforcements and signs of truth.
First, defendant 2 gave this version on his own initiative, already in questioning with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, and repeated it in one form or another throughout all of his statements; Although there were contradictions in his statements on this matter, it is clear that the contradictions stem solely from his attempt to distance himself from the incident, and from his understanding that his awareness of the planning on the part of Defendant 1 makes him an accomplice to the murder. Thus, in the interrogation after the interrogation, although from time to time he was careful and tried to claim that he had told defendant 1 that there was no need to kill the deceased but only to frighten him, defendant 2 remained firm in his version that defendant 1 insisted that the deceased should be killed and told him exactly how he would attack him from behind (P/12 Qs 18-20, 45-47, 115-135); And even after defendant 2 tried to obscure and minimize the issue of prior planning in the following statements, in the end of the confrontation he reiterated that defendant 1 had planned in advance to kill the deceased (P/8A at pp. 30-32, pp. 61-62).