According to him, defendant 2 came to him at about midnight, they were sitting, smoking and drinking. At a certain point, defendant 2 suggested that they change to more comfortable clothes and they changed clothes, although he did not know that anything was going to happen except that defendant 2 was supposed to give the deceased the money for the drugs. Defendant 2 also suggested that they not meet the deceased at home so that police would not come, and asked if there was a quiet place where he could meet him, and he told him that there was the forest; Defendant 2 agreed, but told him to leave the phones at home so that there would be no eavesdropping and eavesdropping and that they could not be located. Later, the deceased sent him a message that he was coming soon, and when he arrived they told him that the money was in Ivim and that they wanted to sit with him in a quiet place, where there was no police, and "that from there he would supposedly meet [Defendant 2] in general", so they got into his car and drove towards Ivim, sitting in the back. According to him, only when the deceased arrived did they see that he was a security guard with a weapon, and he did not know it before; After they got out of the car in the woods, defendant 2 asked the deceased several times to put the weapon in the car, and said that he was afraid that his friend had been shot with a gun, and finally the deceased put the weapon in the car (ibid., pp. 7-9). At the end of the confrontation, Defendant 1 denied Defendant 2's claim that he had planned the murder in advance; insisted that defendant 2 was the one who wanted to meet with the deceased in a quiet place where he could transfer the money to him; and that defendant 2 was supposed to pay for the drugs, but he did not know if he had the money with him (ibid., at pp. 71-74).
In his last interrogation on March 13, 2018, at 2:22 P.M . (Message P/9, CD P/9B, transcript of P/9A), after he was played part of a telephone conversation (call 21-27-20 of February 26, 2018), Defendant 1 recognized that he was heard telling Defendant 2 that he was waiting for him, and noted that prior to that they had determined that Defendant 2 would take the drugs that the deceased had left in his home, which he was supposed to buy that day. To the question of how this argument reconciles with the fact that the deceased had already left them the drugs and that defendant 2 had come to the meeting without money, defendant 1 replied that the deceased brought the drugs to him because he had mediated between him and defendant 2, and that defendant 2 came to him with a bag and he thought that the money was in his bag or in his pocket. When asked where Defendant 2's bag was at the incident, he replied that he did not take it with him, but that he had a bump in his pocket and he thought it was the money (P/9 S. 130-154).