Later, when he was also asked why he said that after the deceased fell to the ground, he began to beat him with his hands and with objects he found until defendant 2 was forced to move him away from him, defendant 1 gave convoluted answers, and was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for this matter. According to him, he lied to the police and said things "in order to make myself clean, as clean as possible, I thought I would come out that way"; and to the question of how this version would help him, he gave evasive answers and finally said, " I thought that if I showed a drop of involvement it would show my credibility, so I showed a little bit of involvement and exaggerated... The person who ended up killing him according to the false version I brought was, as it were, [ Defendant 2]... Yes, as it were, there is a percentage of my involvement, that's what I thought to myself, because there is a small percentage of my involvement, but it's not such a big involvement, he hit him and just followed [Defendant 2] who threatened him, and then they will release me" (pp. 376-378). He later claimed in this context that not everything he said in the interrogation was false, and that he took the things that happened and exacerbated them in order to incriminate Defendant 2 : "I am taking the drag to the extreme in order to blame him, I am exaggerating the brutality in order to blame him, I am extremizing the threats in order to blame him, threats that did not happen, brutality that did not happen, an attempt to plan before it really happened... I do cling to a sequence of existing things, I just radicalize them in order to bring them down on him, so that everyone will see that he is cruel and I am not" (p. 422, paras. 6-14).
Regarding the stage at which they noticed the deceased's gun, defendant 1 gave a suppressed version in his testimony, according to which they had not seen the gun at all before the incident, but rather that some time had passed since the car was set on fire; a version that stands in complete contradiction to what the defendants told the police, when each of them said that they had seen the gun before the incident, and that the other had convinced the deceased to leave the gun in the car. Defendant 1 did not give any explanation for the change in the version in this matter, and did not refer to it at all in his main testimony, except for a casual mention of the stage at which they allegedly saw the gun in the car door before the arson was set on fire (pp. 347, paras. 14-17). In his cross-examination, he claimed that the version they gave to the police was false, and added, "I want to understand one thing, it sounds logical that a person in the middle of a forest in front of two people would walk, put the car (sic) in the car as I claimed?... It's hard for me to believe it's true, why? Because it's false... It was a lie that we asked him, the gun was not on him and that is why we were not afraid, we only received the gun when we came to burn a body..." (p. 387, paras. 1-7). It should also be noted that during the reconstruction, defendant 1 explained that on their way to the forest in the deceased's car, defendant 2 was supposed to sit in the front next to the deceased, but after he saw the gun, he sat with it in the back so that they could talk (P/5C, p. 7, paras. 25-32); and that in his main testimony he also said that he and defendant 2 sat in the back and whispered, although he omitted the reason for this way of sitting and the content of the conversation (p. 340, paras. 1-2). Beyond the fact that Defendant 1 did not provide any explanation for the suppression of the testimony in this matter, he also did not explain the reason why he allegedly lied about this matter during his interrogations with the police, or how Defendant 2 also gave the same allegedly false version to the police; Nor did he enumerate this matter among those issues about which he allegedly lied during the interrogation following the conversation with Detective Hamami (see pp. 366-371).