This attitude of defendant 2 reached its peak at the end of the main testimony, when defendant 2 said, "I don't understand where I am, I don't understand what's going on, I don't understand how I'm connected to it, I don't understand how it dragged into the same situation that I'm in within this system" (p. 473, para. 19). This is an inconceivable and astonishing statement, since even according to his version, in the most lenient formulation, defendant 2 was part of an incident in which, as a result of his actions together with defendant 1, out of a desire to take possession of the deceased's drugs without paying for them, the death of the deceased was accidentally caused, and he was even an accomplice in setting fire to the car while the deceased was inside, as part of the attempt to conceal the evidence. It is difficult to shock a situation in which a young man, about 20 years old, who defines himself as normative, calmly recounts very difficult acts he committed that night (as stated in a very softened version), and is unable to understand how he is connected to the case and why he came to court. This is a statement that best illustrates the fact that Defendant 2 is constantly focused on himself and on the question of how things will affect him and the course of his life; This is similar to his conduct from the end of his first police interrogation and his attempts to bargain with the investigators about the compensation he would receive if he spoke, and it seems that the words speak for themselves.
In addition, throughout his testimony, Defendant 2 reiterated the claim that the interrogators threatened him during the interrogation and told him that if he dropped everything on Defendant 1 he would be released, even though he had great difficulty explaining the connection between those threats and the alleged violation of his rights, and what he said to the police; and he was unable to explain why, according to him, he lied on the very matters that he retracted in his testimony. Thus, in a manner that illustrated the impression of a manipulative and self-centered person, Defendant 2 reiterated in response to many of the questions, with or without connection to the question, that the interrogators had exerted pressure and threats on him and deprived him of his rights, as a kind of mantra or automatic answer that he repeated throughout the testimony; Similarly, he repeated the claim that his lawyer had instructed him to adhere to the same version. Thus, for example, when he was asked by the court to explain what lies he allegedly told in his statements under the influence of the interrogators, he replied no to the matter (and we even commented on this, see pp. 467-468); Later on, he found refuge in the same repeated statements while he became entangled in his answers in the cross-examination, and again it was noted to him that he did not respond to the matter and repeated the same statements over and over again instead of answering the questions (see pp. 495, 27-496, 3, pp. 496, 19-21, 498, 4-7). In this context, I will note that the intensification and exaggeration of Defendant 2 regarding the injustices allegedly inflicted on him by the interrogators and the sense of victimhood he conveyed, for example in his words: "When you are brought into a room and told you, 'We know about the murder, we know what happened, your partner opened everything on you, a guillotine is placed on you,' aren't that threats? Isn't that addressing a person in the form of trampling on the person? Isn't it?" (p. 501, paras. 8-10); stand in contrast to the lack of empathy he showed towards the deceased and his family, and the lack of insight he demonstrated regarding the severity of his behavior in the incident even according to his new version (and see the court's comments in this context at pp. 506-507, 511-512).