Defendant 2 claimed that the deceased's phone was used to search for the keys of defendant 1, since he did not take a phone with him because he did not have a battery and left it charging at defendant 1's house; He claimed that he did not know whether defendant 1 had a phone with him. Even when he was told that the interrogation material showed that the two of them did not come to the scene with a telephone on purpose, defendant 2 insisted on the matter (ibid., at paras. 167-189).
He also confirmed that they tried to break into the deceased's home in order to steal the drugs from him, adding that "[Defendant 1] told me that the material he had was from a person who owed debts and should be taken from him." According to him, he was not supposed to pay for the drugs, but defendant 1 was supposed to bring him 1-2 grams for his own use (ibid., at paras. 61-79).
In a confrontation that took place between the defendants on March 7, 2018 at 11:16 A.M. (Conflict Report P/8, CD P/8B, transcript P/8A; It should be noted that some of the quotes that will be quoted below do not appear in the transcript, but are clearly heard on the disc documenting the confrontation – P/8B) Defendant 2 claimed that Defendant 1 approached him at work and told him that he had someone who wanted to "kick" drugs and was not succeeding, he asked about the costs and Defendant 1 told him "Don't worry, I will pay him everything, I will bring you a taste of some and then you will decide whether you want to buy or not", and he agreed. On Sunday, his friend Matan Ohana drove him to the area to buy drugs, after promising to give him a small amount of the drug; He and defendant 1 went to the deceased's house, and defendant 1 said to the deceased, "Listen, here's my person, he's a person who wants to buy... I have the money, I have everything." Defendant 1 did not want to give the deceased the money and told him to wait until tomorrow, since he wanted to break into his house beforehand, after the deceased had gone to work. Indeed, they went to the deceased's house again, when he stood on the side and watched that no one came and also tried to open the door but failed, they walked from behind, defendant 1 climbed onto the roof and tried to find another entrance but did not succeed, and in the end he said that the next day they would meet with the deceased and "we will see what happens". He stayed to sleep with Defendant 1, and the next day Defendant 1 told him that he had spoken to the deceased, who said he would bring the drug to his house in the afternoon; Later he informed him that the deceased had brought him the drugs to his house, suggested that he come to sleep with him and that in the evening they would meet with the deceased and bring him the money (P/8A, pp. 22-25). To the interrogators' questions, Defendant 2 replied that Defendant 1 was supposed to pay for the drug and told him that he had money; claimed that he himself should not have paid because he did not know the deceased and wanted to see who the person was before paying him; But when asked if he intended to pay, he replied in the negative, saying that he wanted to see the material, and "if I had seen that it was true, I did want to buy, but I didn't want to buy, [defendant 1] said he was paying for everything." When asked why he came to the meeting, he replied, "I wanted to see if it was possible to buy the drugs, to see if the person was trustworthy, to see if nothing would happen to me, I saw it. On Monday he told me he was paying"; and when asked if he wanted the drugs, he replied, "I wanted to but I didn't want to pay for them, [defendant 1] told me that he buys everything and he brings me some... so that after that, if I want to buy from [defendant 1], I will turn to him personally and buy from him" (ibid., at pp. 25-26). Later on, too, defendant 2 reiterated his claim that he was not supposed to pay for the drugs, but he was unable to explain why, then, defendant 1 would have needed him in the transaction (ibid., at pp. 50-51).