Although he was accused that the claim of lack of memory, in relation to events so close in time, is akin to maintaining the right to remain silent, the defendant claimed that he was answering the questions, and that he did not maintain the right to remain silent, but in practice he continued in the same way and replied that he did not remember whether they were in the parking lot before the arrest, where they were before the arrest, whether they asked to put a vehicle on a tow truck, whether they ordered a tow truck, whether they dealt with a towing, Did they replace the license plates before the Mitsubishi was loaded into a tow truck and so on? When confronted with the discovery of the license plates that were dismantled from the Mitsubishi in the Mazda, he denied the claim and said that the search took place in his absence and that it was the police who planted the license plates in his car. He also claimed that he had nothing to do with the plate replacement and the loading of the Mitsubishi on the tow truck, and that the screwdriver seized in the car belonged to him, but had nothing to do with the plate replacement. As for conflicts, he said his family has many of them, but he himself is not involved in them. When asked about his actions on the day of the murder, he claimed that he did not remember anything about his actions. In relation to the deceased, he claimed that he did not know the Al-Wahwah family or the deceased and that he had nothing to do with the murder, the loading of the vehicle and the driver of the tow truck, and that he did not call and ask anyone to tow it. He was shown the three seized phones, and he refused to give them their login passwords.
00To summarize this preliminary version, in addition to the general denial of any connection to the murder, the defendant was attacked with complete amnesia in relation to his actions both on the day of his arrest and on the day of the murder, which preceded him only three days, and he did not remember any details regarding his actions on those days, not even the most marginal. Considering that these were events that took place only a short time before the testimony was taken, the conclusion is that the defendant consciously chose not to answer the questions, and in fact maintained his right to remain silent, under the guise of claiming memory difficulties. In addition, in response to some of the questions asked, the defendant provided factual details that there is no choice but to define as blatant lies, after the defendant himself admitted to this in his testimony in court, and they are even well anchored in the evidence that the investigation team was able to gather. This is the case, for example, with regard to the purpose of the trip to Tel Aviv and the claims that he did not order a tow truck and did not speak with the driver of the tow truck, was not involved in the replacement of the license plates, the dismantled plates were not placed by him in the Mazda, and the claim that he did not know the deceased and his family.