Defendant 2's version
As stated, in his first interrogation, Defendant 2 was interrogated and warned on suspicion of committing drug offenses, and gave a version similar to that of Defendant 1 regarding their stay together on Sunday and Monday; You arrived at the deceased's home on Sunday with a conversation about the purchase of drugs; and the plan to meet the deceased on Monday, which was not carried out because the deceased did not come and did not answer them. Defendant 2 also added beyond what was claimed by Defendant 1 in the initial interrogations, that a deal was made between them and the deceased for the purchase of about 70 grams of cannabis, that the deceased brought the drug to the home of Defendant 1 on Monday afternoon, and that in the evening they were supposed to meet in order to pay him for the drug; Although he claimed that it was not he who was supposed to pay for the drug, but defendant 1.
After the interrogation was completed, after Investigator Benita noticed scratches on Defendant 2' s body, he told him that in his opinion he had not told the whole truth during the interrogation, and left them under the supervision of Investigator Malichi, who told him that he had a "guillotine above his neck"; Defendant 2 told Interrogator Malichi that he wanted to tell "the whole truth," that he was a witness to the murder and wanted to be protected and his family if he told the truth. Therefore, the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit was brought to speak with him, and after discussions between them, Defendant 2 said that Defendant 1 had murdered the deceased, while also linking himself to the events. Only after this conversation, which was fully recorded, was Defendant 2 interrogated under a warning on suspicion of murder, where he expanded his version and added many details about his part in the incident.
The various statements of defendant 2 regarding the various stages of the incident will be detailed in detail below. It should be noted at this point that similar to the manner in which Defendant 1 acted in his statements, Defendant 2 tried in all his statements to glorify Defendant 1's role in the incident, and to present himself as someone who was caught up in the incident against his will and out of fear of Defendant 1, even though in the end, he connected himself as a full accomplice in the murder of the deceased.