It should be noted that not only is this suppressed version not mentioned in the many statements of the defendants to the police, but it was not even brought up at the beginning of the trial, and at the response stage, their counsel asked them to give a general heresy, claiming that each of them was "slandering" the other and that providing a response would worsen their situation and help the prosecution. Despite the aforesaid, in their testimonies in court, the defendants gave a fundamentally similar version, in fact told of a joint execution and did not "libel" each other, so that in the test of fact no real explanation was given for the fact that no response was given to the indictment, and that the defendants' current version was presented to the court only during the defense case. Moreover, it appears that the defendants' versions were finally formulated right around the time of the defense's case, since at the time of hearing the testimony of defendant 1, counsel for defendant 2 asked not to cross-examine him, but only after he was interrogated by counsel for the accuser, and then asked to postpone the hearing in order to prepare for it; It seems that even at this stage, defendant 2's version has not yet been formulated, and that until the last minute it was not clear whether the defendants would insist on the version they gave to the police in which they incriminated each other, or not (see pp. 324, 372-373). It should also be noted that in the end, none of the defendants' counsel cross-examined the other defendant.
It has been held more than once in case law that the value and weight of suppressed testimony is very low, as long as the witness does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the suppression of the testimony and the reason for its disclosure at a later stage of the trial (see, for example, Criminal Appeal 4297/98 Hershtik v. State of Israel, IsrSC 55(4), 673). It was also held that the same applies to the testimony of a defendant, even though he has the right to remain silent during the interrogation proceedings. In this context, it was held inCriminal Appeal 5730/96 Graziani v. the State of Israel [published in Nevo] (May 18, 1998):