And second, this version is consistent with the rest of the evidence: when the sock was brought to the scene as noted above; with the preliminary telephone conversations between the defendants, just before the meeting with the deceased; upon changing clothes and leaving the phones at the home of defendant 1; When the deceased was taken to a dark and secluded place; and when they were urged to leave the gun in the car, immediately after they found out about the gun's existence. In this context, it should be noted that even the statements of defendant 2 that he held the deceased's hands when defendant 1 hit him and that he himself hit the deceased, since he knew that the deceased had a gun and that he was afraid that if the deceased came to the car he would shoot him (P/12 Q. 52-53, 164-165, 189, 199-200), testify to the defendants' plan to kill the deceased, at least from the moment they saw the gun in his possession.
From all of the above, it emerges that it can be determined with certainty that the incident took place in a manner similar to that described by the defendants in their statements, but together and as a result of prior planning, and not when one of them was leading and the other was being dragged or when one of them was threatening and the other was afraid, as each of them tried to claim in an attempt to extricate himself.
III. The External Evidence Supporting the Defendants' Statements to the Police
Beyond the signs of truth that arise in terms of the statements of the defendants in the police and the similarities between them, as noted above, they have many corroborations from the external evidence. Admittedly, a significant part of the external evidence strengthens the fact that the incident took place, the defendants' responsibility for the deceased's death, and matters that are not in dispute (such as the discovery of the deceased's blood on the rock, the defendants' clothes with human blood on them, the discovery of the deceased's pistol and cartridge, the security cameras from the gas stations, etc.). However, some of the external evidence strengthens those matters in dispute, namely the existence of a prior planning and prior intention to kill the deceased, and the manner in which the defendants attacked the deceased.