In her testimony in court, Kristina confirmed that she had told the truth in her statements to the police.
According to the defendant's counsel, there is a great difference between Kristina's theory in her two statements to the police, where in her first statement she stated that after the deceased dropped the defendant to the ground and did not let go of the defendant, the defendant fired in the air and then shot the deceased, while in her second statement she did not mention this. In this context, it should be emphasized that Kristina herself did not see any difference between these two descriptions, as is evident from her answers to the questions asked in her cross-examination regarding this. Even if there is a difference in Kristina's two versions, as stated, regarding the defendant's shooting in the air, in both of her statements Kristina said that the defendant told her that the deceased had knocked him to the ground and then the defendant shot him.
- In his testimony in court, Chief of Security Yaniv Ben Shimol also stated that the defendant told him similar things when he met him when he returned to the scene of the incident together with Kristina. Thus, at p. 474 of Prut, paras. 25-28: "He says, 'We fought on the road, he blocked me'... "We got here, we started fighting. I fell to the ground, he was above me and I had to shoot.'" In other words, Yaniv's description also indicates that the defendant said, immediately after the incident, that he shot the deceased while he was above him, during the struggle on the floor.
I did not lose sight of the defendant's argument that in an interview that Yaniv gave to the media the day after the incident, he did not mention what the defendant told him, as he stated in his testimony. However, I did not find that this would impair the credibility of Yaniv's testimony. This is a television interview in which Yaniv was interviewed, as opposed to the testimony that Yaniv gave to the investigative bodies as part of his interrogation and noted the accuracy of his words, while in the television interview he said what he chose to say from all of these. Yaniv explained in this context that in the interview he told what he saw fit at that moment and that he did not go into details. When he was interrogated by the police a few days later and asked them the relevant questions, he answered them from what he remembered (see p. 482 of Prot., paras. 27 ff.).