Defendant 2's efforts to place full responsibility for the incident on defendant 1, even now, and his entanglement in lies during his cross-examination, are well illustrated in his version of the car being set on fire. In his main testimony, defendant 2 described the events as if defendant 1 had done everything and he only followed him with no other choice, with defendant 1 not only initiating the arson and purchasing the fuel, but also the person who tried to set it on fire, found the perfume in the car, sprayed something and set the car on fire (pp. 459-460). In his cross-examination, when he was told that Defendant 1 had also said in his testimony in court that Defendant 2 was the one who brought him the perfume and sprayed it on the paper, he replied in the negative, and when asked to detail his version, he gave contradictory answers as detailed below:
"Defendant 2: So as I said here, [Defendant 1] Tried to light it, couldn't, found some kind of perfume, sprayed the perfume on a piece of paper and lit it. That's what happened.
25 Aharon Mishnayot: He did everything. You didn't do anything about it.
Defendant 2: I said, I sprayed.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: What did you spray?
Defendant 2: Now I said, he took the perfume, I sprayed on a piece of paper and he threw it.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: Did you splash or did he spray?
Defendant 2: I didn't understand.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: Did you splash or did he spray?
Defendant 2: I don't know what you're talking about.
C.H. Gilat Shalev : Who sprayed the perfume?
Defendant 2: I didn't understand the question.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: Did you spray the perfume on the paper?
Defendant 2: No, he sprayed.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: Now you said you were.
Defendant 2: I didn't understand you.
2.H. Yael Raz Levy: Okay. So not a perfume splash?
Defendant 2: Nope.