In their testimonies, the defendants denied the existence of a prior intention and plan to kill the deceased in the forest, and claimed that they led him to a meeting in the forest in order to frighten him and make him give up the payment for the drug he supplied them, and that they intended to beat him a little as part of an attempt to scare him. They also claimed that the deceased was beaten with only a few slaps, as a result of which he fell to the ground and hit his head with a stone, lost a lot of blood and died immediately afterwards; They denied that they beat him after he fell, or that they beat him with kicks, fists, and stones. According to them, the car was set on fire only after they discovered that the deceased was dead, with the intention of getting rid of the evidence and for fear of being caught. The defendants also claimed that they saw the deceased's gun for the first time only before they burned the car, and denied the claim that upon their arrival at the forest they demanded that the deceased leave the gun in the car.
In view of the aforesaid version, which counsel for the defendants sought to adopt, it was argued that the defendants' actions do not establish the elements of the offense of premeditated murder attributed to them, but rather the offense of negligent homicide under section 301C of the Law as it is currently drafted, and at most the offense of manslaughter under section 298 of the law as it was then drafted. Alternatively, it was argued that if the court rejects the defendants' version, then at most they should be convicted of the "basic" offense of murder under section 300(a) of the law as it is currently drafted, since they do not meet any of the aggravating circumstances set forth in section 301A of the law.
With regard to the statements made by the defendants in their interrogations with the police, counsel for the defendants argued, as aforesaid, that the statements of defendant 2 should be invalidated because they were taken in violation of his right to consult a lawyer and using improper exercises by the investigative unit, which led him to give a false version in which he incriminated defendant 1 in an attempt to extricate himself from the file; and that the statements should also be disqualified as statements of a witness against defendant 1. It was further argued that the invalid statements of Defendant 2 were brought to the attention of Defendant 1 by Detective Adi Hamami, and led him to make false statements incriminating Defendant 2, in order to extricate himself from the file; Thus, the defendants' statements cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction.