Defendant 2 also failed to explain why they did not call for help, if the deceased's injury was caused by mistake and not intentionally, and all he claimed was that they were afraid that they would not believe them about what had happened; and when he was told that what they were supposed to have in mind was saving lives, he replied that they could not think logically in that situation (p. 460). In the cross-examination, he also answered questions about not calling for help in an irrelevant manner, and added that "you can't ask a normative person after an incident like this to come and react rationally. This is the first time I've experienced things like this. I don't have the tools to deal with it. You don't think, you don't say, 'Let's call for help.'" Even in these answers of Defendant 2, which express behavior that lacks empathy for others, which contradicts the most basic moral imperative of "You shall not stand on the blood of your neighbor," we can see clear evidence of the intensity of Defendant 2's self-centeredness.
Summary of the evaluation of the defendants' testimonies
The testimonies of the defendants before us left the impression of unreliable, processed and coordinated testimonies, in which they tried to create a new version, somewhat similar to the versions they gave to the police, but after deliberately omitting from them all the details attesting to a prior plan to kill the deceased and the manner in which the execution was carried out. It should be noted that, not surprisingly, the same details that were omitted in the defendants' suppressed version are not only the cardinal details to prove the crime of murder; Rather, these are details related to the core of the incident, which are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendants – both regarding what happened when only the two of them were in the forest with the deceased, and what happened in the preliminary planning talks that took place between them before the incident – as opposed to the very meeting with the deceased, causing his death and setting fire to the car, matters about which the defendants knew that there was a lot of external evidence, which they could not deny. the very fact that the defendants conducted that artificial filtering, between details of their statements to the police that cannot be disputed, which they reiterated and confirmed, and other details that are at the heart of the dispute, which they retracted in their testimonies and which they denied; This in itself testifies to the absurdity of the new version, all this especially when the two defendants failed to explain why these details should be disqualified or rejected from statements made by the police.