It follows that the existence of a dispute between the defendant and Y. has been proven. Thus, the defendant's story to the informants (insofar as he relates to this dispute) is not detached from reality. At the same time, the question arises as to why the defendant chose to share his dispute with Y. with the informants. Yes, why did he see fit to share with them things that were true? His answer to this was that it was a real part that was intertwined with the overall story he had chosen to invent. In one of his answers, the defendant said:
"I didn't make it up, why did I tell him that there was a dispute with Y.? Because Y. was the one who attacked me, so he was the first one that came to my mind at that moment. I had to create something for him to be calm. In the end, after I start telling him all these things, he says to me, well, come and sit next to me, I don't care who you are, I don't care about anything." (p. 553 of the transcript, lines 27-30).
He later answered: "Because it's also part of showing that I too have conflicts and I'm not a murderer, as if for nothing, Y. was the one who attacked me, and that's what came to my mind at that moment. So I said to myself, what do I care he knew about it?(p. 556 of the transcript, lines 4-6).
Later, the defendant was confronted with his version to the informants, according to which ".... You thought the masked cyclist was Y. because Y. had an electric bicycle, you said it was the same body type, you thought he came to you in your neighborhood and that's why you stabbed the deceased" (p. 531, lines 1-13). In response, the defendant replied that his words were part of the story he had invented, and that Y. did not have an electric bicycle and Orr did not have an electric bicycle (p. 531, lines 4-5).
In his summary, the defense attorney addressed this issue, stating: "The police investigators did everything in their power to find indications that I had an electric bicycle, that Y. had ever ridden an electric bicycle. This claim was contradicted during an investigation when a search of Y.'s home did not find an electric bicycle, and in the investigations conducted by Y. and his family, the possibility that Y. used to ride an electric bicycle or that he or any of his relatives owned an electric bicycle was refuted." See section 266B of the summaries, p. 117. I will not sin against the purpose, if I emphasize again, that in this matter, no factual basis has been laid that shows that Y. owns and/or uses an electric bicycle.
- The interrogation exercise between the defendant and S. at the police stationThis is how the defendant related to this encounter in his testimony; "Yes. So all in all, what did he give me friendly advice to keep my right to remain silent, even if he hadn't told me to keep my right to remain silent on the advice of my lawyer I would have kept my right to remain silent..." (p. 496 of Prut, lines 23-25).
In his cross-examination, when the defendant referred to this interrogation exercise, he reiterated as follows: "But S. had nothing to say about me, he had nothing to say about me, except that we saw the cyclist together, and he said to me, "So-and-so, we didn't see anything and we don't know anything, that's the only thing that S. could tell about me, that we were both standing together at the intersection, we both saw the cyclist, we both heard the shouting, we both saw the son after my run, I bumped into him, and S. saw him as well, that's the only thing S. could tell." And I wasn't sure he wouldn't tell it, that's why I told him, 'I trust you, don't tell it.'" (p. 533, line 30 to p. 534, line 3).