Defendant 1 also failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why they preferred to drag the deceased into the car instead of calling and calling for help, especially if the claim that they did not intend to kill him and that his injury surprised them; and after a number of evasive answers, he claimed that they thought there was a chance that he would wake up and that they were afraid to report it because the deceased had been beaten and that the drugs were in his home (p. 344). He later claimed in this context that they were under pressure and feared that if they called the police or an ambulance then "not only did he die, my family died too," and that they did not think at that moment of trying to save him, but rather "just get rid of it and not be attached to it, not be there anymore," and reiterated that it is easy to look at things from the sidelines (pp. 349-350). Defendant 1 also failed to explain why the deceased was dragged into the car in the hope that the bleeding would stop, instead of trying to stop the bleeding by simple means, except for the casual claim that they did not think logically at that moment (pp. 416-417).
As stated, when he was asked to explain in his cross-examination why he gave more serious details in his statements to the police about the manner in which the incident occurred, Defendant 1 got into trouble with his answers and was unable to explain it. Thus, when asked why in the interrogation he said that during the dragging of the deceased, he noticed that the deceased was beginning to breathe and when he called Defendant 2, he began to kick him in the chest until the deceased made a kind of scream and fell silent, he first replied that he and Defendant 2 lied during the interrogations "in order to get ourselves out as best as possible" and get out of the case. When confronted with the fact that this version, which ostensibly describes the moment of the deceased's death, was no better for him, he gave convoluted and illogical answers, according to which Detective Hamami allegedly told him that if he said that Defendant 2 had done it, he would go home; And to the question of why, then, he added strict details that in his opinion did not happen, he replied, "Let it appear credible, I lie, I lie in every detail, that he shouted and that there was an outcry and that he was like that so that they would think it was credible, that's why I go down to the small details as well... There are things that I referred to in my testimonies about yes what happened and there are things that I added so that they would sound credible and understand that I had nothing to do with it. A person who lies wants to sound trustworthy and he himself knows that he is not trustworthy because he knows that he is lying, so you add and you try in every trick of one kind or another to make a person believe you, you just add, add and add" (pp. 374-375).