In addition, and like all their testimony before us, this explanation of the defendants constitutes a suppressed version that came up for the first time only in their testimony in court; and it is clear that if it were the true explanation, it would have come up at the first opportunity. When the conversation was played to Defendant 1 in his last interrogation, he pretended to be surprised, grabbed his head in his hands and said again and again, "How could I not notice" and "What an idiot I am", and claimed that he thought that Defendant 2 was just asking and wanted to know if he knew the family from the drug dealings, or so that it would not turn out that he was an agent or an informant; and that he did not think that Defendant 2 wanted to know this in order to murder the deceased (P/9 S. 163-191). In other words, Defendant 1 also believed that the simple interpretation of the conversation was the existence of a prior plan to murder the deceased, but claimed that it was only a plan on the part of Defendant 2, of which he was not aware.
On the other hand, defendant 2 claimed in his last interrogation that he only wanted to know who they were going to meet, since he was talking about a drug dealer he had never met, and he wanted to make sure that he was not dangerous or belonging to a family of criminals, as he always checks. It should be noted that Defendant 2 initially referred to the conversation as if it had taken place before his first meeting with the deceased on Sunday, i.e., in connection with the execution of a drug deal, and not in connection with the threats or theft of drugs from him; But even when he was told that the conversation had taken place a few hours before the murder, he insisted on his version and claimed that he wanted to find out who the deceased was only in the context of the drug deal, and said nothing about the fear that the deceased's family would harm them if they stole the drugs from him (P/15 S. 60-96, 97-112, and P/15A, p. 23, S. 24-25).