Serious Crimes Case (Beer Sheva) 63357-03-18 State of Israel – F.M.D. V. Assaf Masoud Suissa - part 89

When asked if as a result he had said incorrect things during the interrogations, Defendant 2 replied that the interrogators had exerted pressure and threats on him, deprived him of his rights, and that the commander of the Intelligence Unit told him to drop everything on Defendant 1, and therefore some of the things he said in the interrogations were not true.  Thus, for example, his statement that defendant 1 threatened him or that he was afraid of him; that defendant 1 kicked the deceased and punched him in the face, and in general they kicked and punched the deceased; that he himself struck the deceased, even though he does not remember whether he did so; that his leg swelled as a result of kicking the deceased, since he claimed that his leg was bent as a result of dragging the deceased; who held the deceased while defendant 1 beat him; that Defendant 1 planned the murder in detail and shared it with him as early as Sunday; Or that defendant 1 was equipped with a sock before the incident and hit the deceased with a sock with a stone inside.  When asked why he also got himself into trouble if the interrogators told him to drop everything on Defendant 1, he replied that the commander of the Intelligence Unit told him to drop everything on Defendant 1 but to show that he had a partial involvement in the incident and then he would be released, and so he acted.  However, he clarified that the interrogators did not tell him what to say beyond that, did not tell him to say that there were kicks, did not tell him about the pre-planning, and did not tell him that a sock was found at the scene or that he would talk about a sock; Rather, he lied and fabricated these details in order to give credibility to his story and to show that he had no connection to the incident in order to be released (pp. 467-472, 476-479, 481, 485-486, 488, 490, 494).  When asked how it was possible that he and Defendant 1 lied in the same manner, he replied that Defendant 1 explained in his testimony that the interrogators had told him everything that Defendant 2 had told him during the interrogation, and thus Defendant 1 "coordinated his testimony with mine" (pp. 489-490).