In the course of his cross-examination, the defendant also referred to the interrogation exercise with Y., when he said that he wanted to convey a message to Y. so that he would understand that he too would not speak, and this is how he described the matter in his own words: "That he is not talking about me and that he is there, but that he will talk about me even though I am not talking about him and he will not talk about me." (sic) (p. 531, lines 18-19). Admittedly, the defendant's conduct in this context raises suspicion that he tried to conceal something and/or any detail. At the same time, the existing body of evidence does not teach us what the defendant wanted to conceal and whether we are interested in a minor detail and/or a material detail that relates to the murder itself. Yes, given the deep cracks that were discovered in the defendant's confession, his conduct (which also remained shrouded in mystery) would not be able to fill the many gaps and gaps that were discovered on the basic evidentiary level that characterizes his poverty.
- Did S. also see the deceased while riding the bicycle? On the one hand, the defendant noted that both he and S. noticed the cyclist. On the other hand, according to S., he did not see the cyclist while he was driving back and forth (p. 401, line 9). There is a contradiction in this matter between the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of S. While the defendant claims, and even repeats it more than once, that they both saw the cyclist walking around the area and that, the defendant ran after the cyclist and when they did not catch him he returned to the place where he was, and then, both he and S. met a third person whom they were unable to identify. Later, he and S. separated. Thus, according to S., he did not see anything from all that occurrence as described by the defendant.
It should be noted that both the defendant and S. agree that they sat and smoked together on the night of the murder. However, according to S., their paths parted ways before they collided with the cyclist. Later on, there are contradictions between their versions, when I did not find support for the defendant's testimony. Yes, S.'s testimony left the impression that even though I did not see fit to disqualify it (see – my determination as to the degree of reliability of witness S., as quoted in the preamble to section 283 above, from which it emerges that I was not impressed by the refutation and/or lack of credibility that adhered to the testimony of the witness before us), there is much more hidden in it than what is revealed. Hence, where there is no support for one version or another, to the extent that it is capable of dissipating the heavy fog surrounding the occurrence in question, I have not found it necessary to determine the rivets on this question, which is not located at the core of the dispute between the accuser and the defense.