The defendant was asked about the nickname "Yayo" and claimed that he did not have a nickname, and that he did not know and that he had not heard, because that is how family and friends call him (p. 553 of the protégé). When the defendant was told that in an action report prepared by Policeman Emanuel Aviv (P/12) it was recorded that in his conversation with his mother she was asked who "Yayo" was, and she replied that it was her son, the defendant claimed that he did not believe the police officers (p. 555 of Prut). The defendant was presented with the fact that in the action report filled out by the policeman Ziv Sardes (P/8), whom he met in the warehouse of his residence, it was recorded that the defendant had given him his name Ashbir Tarkin, including his ID number, and that he had stated to the policeman that he was called "Yayo". The defendant confirmed that his name was indeed Ashbir Tarkin, and confirmed the correctness of his ID number as recorded in the report, but denied that he had said the nickname "Yayo", and claimed that he did not have such a nickname (p. 557 of the report). When the defendant was told that Officer Adana, who serves as the NCO of the Ethiopian community, stated in his testimony that he knew him and his family, and that the defendant's mother called him "Yayo," the defendant replied that they were indeed a well-known family, but repeatedly denied the nickname attributed to him (pp. 559-560 of Prut).
The defendant confirmed that security cameras were installed in his home on Saharon Street, including a camera installed above the apartment door (p. 560 of the protégé). The defendant confirmed that in the video that was shown to him (P/58) he was recorded returning to his apartment at 1:58 P.M. and leaving after about 15 minutes wearing other clothes, with which he was later arrested (pp. 560-561 of the protégé).
The defendant confirmed in his testimony that the black clothes he wore until he returned to the apartment, which he had exchanged for others, were seized by the police during a search of his apartment (pp. 562, 566 of Prut). The defendant was asked about the fact that gunshot remnants were found on his clothes, and he replied that he did not know, and referred the plaintiff to the police, raising the possibility that the remains of the shooting came through the police officers who were at the scene of the shooting before they arrived at his apartment. When the defendant was asked how gunshot remnants were also found on his body, hands, and hair, he replied: "Maybe from the policemen's touches" (pp. 562-563 of the protégé). The defendant was asked whether he was standing next to another person who fired a weapon that day, and he replied: "No, not that I know," but he did not rule out that there might have been shooting in his vicinity without him noticing it (p. 565 of the protégé). The defendant was asked about the fact that remnants of gunfire were also identified on the helmet and the shipment bag found in the warehouse, and he replied that they did not belong to him (p. 567 of the protégé).