The incriminating versions of the defendants in the interrogation
Defendant 1's version
As stated, defendant 1 knew that he was suspected of murdering the deceased from the middle of his first interrogation (P/1). Already in this interrogation, all his rights were explained to him, and he waived his right to consult a lawyer, and he did the same in the additional interrogations and reconstructions that were conducted for him that day until the next morning (28 February 2018-13 May 2018). In his initial interrogations, Defendant 1 denied any connection to the deceased's disappearance, and gave a developing version in which he slowly connected himself and Defendant 2 to a drug deal with the deceased, claiming that they intended to help him find a buyer for the drug, but the deceased did not attend the meeting they had scheduled.
The change in defendant 1's version began after it became clear to him that defendant 2 had told him that the deceased had brought the drugs to his home at noon on the day of the incident (in questioning with the investigator Lazmi, P/3 at pp. 6-7); At this point, defendant 1 agreed to lead the police officers to the drugs he received from the deceased. After they returned from transport, during a conversation and smoking a cigarette with Detective Adi Hamami, Defendant 1 cried and said that he wanted to tell "the whole truth". Thus, beginning his fourth interrogation (P/4), the defendant gave a detailed version in which he linked himself and defendant 2 to the murder of the deceased; Immediately afterwards, he made a detailed reconstruction (P/5), during which he pointed out the places where the events of the night took place, both the murder itself and the events that followed. As stated, during and following the reconstruction, the gun, some of the clothes worn by the defendants in the incident, the lighter and the car keys of the deceased were seized.
The various statements of defendant 1 regarding the various stages of the incident will be detailed in detail below. It should be noted that it is evident from the entirety of defendant 1's statements that he tried to glorify defendant 2's part in the incident, and that he gave few details about the planning of the event, since they presented it as an event in which he found himself and which was initiated by defendant 2.