We will summarize the defendant's conduct at the interrogation stage, and we will say that alongside the attempt to present himself as a cooperative, answering the interrogators' questions and not maintaining the right to remain silent, in practice the defendant maintained silence regarding his actions on the day of the murder and on the day of the arrest, falsely claiming memory difficulties. He was given many opportunities to give an alibi version and to provide exculpatory information, for example regarding the handing over of a phone to another person at relevant times, and the defendant refrained from doing so completely, preferring to maintain ambiguity until after the evidentiary picture became clear. In addition, in addition to the sweeping denial of his involvement in the murder, the defendant also falsely denied many factual facts, in which he was eventually forced to confess in his testimony in court, for example, regarding the collection of the Mitsubishi on the day of the arrest, the dismantling of the plates, the order of the tow truck and the loading of the Mitsubishi on it, his connection to the 685 subscriber, the nature of his acquaintance with Waspi and (omitted), the screenshot with the details of the Mitsubishi, the acquaintance with the deceased and his family. The date of the news of the murder and the internet searches, and much more. Such conduct is inconsistent, even if slightly, with the conduct of an innocent person, who has nothing to do with the acts, who is expected to cry out the cry of innocence and provide a detailed, complete and accurate response to his actions, so that his version can be examined and confirmed. Sweeping preservation of the right to remain silent in relation to all relevant dates, alongside blatant lies regarding facts and conclusive evidence thrown at him, strengthens the prosecution's evidence and establishes another significant layer in the evidentiary body attributed to the defendant's duty.
The defendant's testimony in court