Defendant 2 even twisted and twisted in his testimony and gave tight and false answers when asked to explain incriminating things that he had said in his statements, and this matter was particularly striking with regard to his version in the interrogation that Defendant 1 had been equipped with a sock in advance. In his main testimony, to the defense attorney's question about whether they had been equipped with anything in advance, defendant 2 answered in the negative, and to the question of what he said about it during the interrogation, he replied, "I said that [defendant 1] brought a sock with him to the event. And I don't think it was a sock, it could have been part of his sleeve, because once again, we wore long clothes during the event... The man was wearing a long sleeve, I thought it was a sock..." When the court remarked to him that a sock and not a sleeve were found at the scene and that his words were unclear, he added, "I said in my initial interrogations that [defendant 1] brought a sock with him and put a stone in the sock and hit the deceased on the head... I said that maybe part of the sleeve looked like a sock to me." When asked how a stone could be inserted into his sleeve in order to strike with him without cutting off the sleeve, he replied that he did not know and that this was what he must have seen; But afterwards he said that he had never seen a sock with a stone, and that he had lied during the interrogation because he was under pressure and had been told to drop everything on defendant 1 (pp. 470-471). In this context, it is worth mentioning that in his statements, defendant 2 described the sock as a white sock, which in itself contradicts the confused version regarding the sleeve, since there is no dispute that at the time of the incident the defendants were wearing dark clothes.
Later, when he was referred in his cross-examination to B/12's statement, according to which Defendant 1 told him to walk with the deceased and then hit him with his sock from behind, Defendant 2 reiterated his consistent answer that "I made it up because once again, I wanted it to look credible that I had nothing to do with this incident, again under the pressure of the interrogators and the threats." However, when he was asked why he invented a sock and nothing else, when a sock with blood was even found "by chance" at the scene, Defendant 2 got into trouble with his answers. At first, he claimed, "Because I saw something long, I thought it was a sock. So I said it was a sock." When asked if he had seen anything with a stone, he began to get confused, saying, "That's what I'm saying. That in the initial interrogations I made up that I saw that [Defendant 1] came with a sock and gave the deceased a head. Now what I am saying is that I do not think it was a sock, I think it was a kind of long sleeve"; and on the other hand he replied that he did not see Defendant 1 hitting the deceased with a stone or with something that looked like a sock with a stone; and when he was told that if so, "it could not have been a sleeve because there was no such thing", he replied, "Nice. In my first messages, I made up a story..." To a repeated question as to why he made up a story about a sock, he replied in an irrelevant manner, claiming that "after that incident, [Defendant 1] and I got rid of the same clothes and apparently found one or two socks, so it could be that"; He noted that they probably had blood on all the clothes, including the socks, but did not respond to the comment that the clothes remained with them and that they did not take off socks at the scene (pp. 470-479). In any event, defendant 2 denied that the interrogators told him to talk about a sock, confirmed that at the time he did not know and was not told that a sock with blood was found at the scene, and insisted that he invented it (pp. 478, 7-14, 479, 14-15). From all of the above, it emerges that Defendant 2 was unable to explain why, in order to complicate Defendant 1 in the interrogation, he allegedly invented such a strange and unique detail of the use of a sock for the purpose of attacking the deceased; And the obvious conclusion is that this is something that did indeed happen in reality, especially when it comes to a well-known individual, after a blood-stained sock was found at the scene – a detail that is indisputably not known to defendant 2 at the time he told about the matter.