The defendant's explanation that when he told the police, "I should have given him a couple of shots," he meant shooting at the deceased's back when the deceased fled back to his car, was illogical. The defendant knew that in fact he had fired three bullets at the deceased's back. According to the defendant, he told the police officers that he had fired "some two" because he was afraid to say that he had fired three bullets, so as not to appear to the police as having fired indiscriminately (p. 629 of Prut, s. 23 - p. 630, s. 10):
"Q: How many bullets did you shoot in his back?
A: There are three in his direction.
Q: Three bullets in his direction? Explain to me this sentence "I should have given it two".
Adv. Zemer: "What two."
Q: The combination of two pills and giving in it.
A: They were just talking about the magazine running out, I fired the whole magazine so I had a kind of fear to say I fired three bullets at him so I said "what two" like about two because I was scared.
The Honorable Justice Sheetrit: Why did you say that?
The witness, Mr. Mukin: I was afraid they would interpret it.
The Honorable Justice Sheetrit: What shots did you mean?
The witness, Mr. Mukin: What?
The Honorable Justice Sheetrit: When you said "I put a couple of them in it" or what it says.
The witness, Mr. Mukin: "What two."
The Honorable Justice Sheetrit: What shots did you mean?
The witness, Mr. Mukin: The shooting at the end, the three bullets I fired as he ran.
The Honorable Justice Sheetrit: When he's already running?
The witness, Mr. Mukin: Yes. I just said, 'What two,' because they're talking about the magazine running out, so as if it could be interpreted as firing like that indiscriminately and as if it looked, I was afraid to say three bullets, I fired three bullets at him."
And later on (p. 631 of Prut, paras. 25-29):
"A: But even while he runs the third ball, he falls, so it's already in addition to the two, there's another one. I mean only the final shot.