Another example arises from the manipulative and contradictory manner in which defendant 1 testified, regarding the stage at which he understood that the deceased was dead. In his main testimony, he said that after the deceased fell and they saw that he was not reacting and that he was bleeding in large quantities, they began to drag him to the car, and to the defense attorney's question if the deceased was alive, he replied that they thought that in a dry place the bleeding would stop and the deceased would wake up, but "I touch the area of the leg and it is frozen, I am not now a qualified doctor or anything like that, but at MDA we learned that through the leg you can tell if the person is alive or not. I touch and the person is cold, the person is pale, the person is just dead" (p. 343, paras. 7-11). To the court's question as to whether the deceased had not been checked for his pulse, he replied evasively that it was easy to look at things from the sidelines and ask why they did not act one way or another (pp. 343, 13-17, 19-20). However, he later claimed that before the car was burned, they already knew that the deceased was dead, since "in that situation a person does not have a pulse, the person is white... The person became cold, the person became whiter in a second than he was" (pp. 350, paras. 17-22); Afterwards, he explained that unlike what he had said to the police, he checked and made sure that the deceased was not alive, by grabbing him and feeling that he was cold, examining his leg and seeing that he had no pulse in his leg. When the court confronted him with the fact that he had previously been asked whether he had not checked the deceased's pulse and had not said so, the defendant replied manipulatively, pulling out lies without being moved, as will be presented below (pp. 368-369):
"The Honorable Judge Yael Raz Levy: How did you check? The judge asked you if you checked your pulse, how did you check if he was alive?
Defendant 1: I catch him, I catch him, he's cold.