In the hearing held on January 8, 2019, counsel for defendant 2 added on the issue of the failure to provide a response, "We believe that it is not the role of the defense attorney to fight between them and let the prosecution do the work for them. In this case, in practice, Defendant 2 is defaming everything about Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 is defaming Defendant 2 everything. Therefore, I believe that providing a response in this way can actually worsen the situation of the two defendants."
It should be noted that at the end of the prosecution case (on June 25, 2019), counsel for defendant 2 reiterated and explained that he intended to request in the summaries to invalidate the statements of defendant 2; and counsel for defendant 1 (attorney Eli Banya, who represented defendant 1 from the beginning of the hearing of the evidence until the conclusion of the defense case) noted that according to defendant 1, his version was given to the police following a conversation with detective Adi Hamami. who gave him the version of defendant 2 in the interrogation.
The Fence of Dispute
In the absence of a response to the indictment, the dispute became clear only during the hearing of the defendants' testimonies and the defense's summaries, when the defendants gave a different version of their testimonies than they had given in the police interrogations; And although the difference focused only on a few details, and the defendants confirmed a significant part of the facts of the indictment, it can be said that this is a fundamentally different version of what they said to the police.
In their testimonies, the defendants confirmed everything related to their acquaintance with the deceased, a meeting at his home on February 25, 2018, and a transaction to purchase about 70 grams of cannabis from him for NIS 60 per gram; their failed attempt to break into the deceased's home in order to steal the drug; and the fact that the deceased brought the drug to the home of defendant 1 the next day, and they arranged a meeting after the deceased finished his work in order to transfer the money for the drug to him (facts 1-9 of the indictment). They also confirmed the meeting with the deceased on the morning of 27 February 2018, and the drive with him in his car to the Ivim Forest under the pretext that he would receive the money from them in exchange for the drug; the walk with him in the woods while talking about drugs and hitting him on the head; the deceased's dragging into the vehicle after he was assaulted; the plan to purchase fuel in order to set the vehicle on fire and conceal evidence, the walk to the gas station and then setting the vehicle on fire while the deceased was inside; the taking of the pistol and other items from the deceased, and then the concealment of the evidence in the manner detailed in the indictment (Facts 11-12, 14, 18-28 of the indictment). Accordingly, the defendants' counsel clarified in their summaries that the defendants confess to the offenses of arson, carrying a weapon and obstruction of justice, as attributed to them in the indictment.