The defendant also admitted that he lied when he claimed that the police had planted the Mitsubishi license plates in Mazda, and confirmed that the license plates were removed from the Mitsubishi with the help of the screwdriver. The accusing attorney showed him the video of the dismantling of the plates, and this time the defendant identified himself as the person who helped the worker in the dismantling work, using the screwdriver he owned, with a Corona mask on his face. The defendant had difficulty explaining why he was wearing the mask. He claimed that he was wearing a mask most of the time, and did not intend to disguise his identity, but he was unable to explain why he did not ask to wear a mask during the long police interrogations, even though he was offered one [ibid., pp. 504-508].
The defendant was interrogated about the phones, repeated the details he gave in the main testimony, and also noted that the iPhone was purchased for him by Abu Khalifa, as appears from the documents seized, and therefore even agreed that it was logical that the receipt and the delivery note should be with him, as someone who actually uses the phone [ibid., at p. 512]. Subscribers 401 and 337 were registered in his name, while subscribers 685 were Tucman. The three phones were locked in a code, which he was not willing to share in the interrogation. According to him, the reason he was prevented from revealing the code was not the existence of personal information on the phone, or the fear that information would be found linking him to the murder, but part of the general reluctance to cooperate with the police. The family members, according to the claim, did know the code, and used the phones. The defendant was asked to explain why he did not tell about Samer taking the phone, even after he was explicitly asked whether and when he had given the phone to another and after he was explained the significance of holding a 685 subscription on the day of the murder, and he replied that he was afraid to tell and hoped that the police would investigate the family members and find out who had taken the device [ibid., at p. 517].