The defendant stated that he had used the app for the purpose of making the deliveries, so that it could be used to trace his travel route. Therefore, he was asked how he did not present these figures to the police investigators, since he might have been able to show that he was in a different place during the shooting incident. To this, the defendant replied that he did not trust the policemen, and therefore did not answer their questions in his interrogations with the police (pp. 586, 598 of the protégé).
The defendant repeatedly denied, in response to the plaintiff's questions, that there was a dispute between him and the complainant (p. 603 of the protégé). The defendant confirmed that he had filed a complaint with the police's fraud department, because he said he had signed documents without his knowledge, and as a result he received debt demands, and even claimed that he did not know who did it to him. However, according to the defendant, according to his testimony, the complainant has nothing to do with it. When asked what his explanation was for the complainant's knowledge of this, the defendant replied: "People know from this story," and noted that he had contacted a social worker, and according to him, people were talking and rumors were running (p. 605 of Prut)
The defendant stated that when he was told in his police interrogation that the complainant had given his name, he replied that he had chosen to maintain his right to remain silent because the interrogation was difficult.Play on his conscience" and he was not interested in cooperating (p. 613 of Prot., paras. 5-9).
When the defendant was told that he was the one who fired at the complainant and hid the weapon, he denied the act and stated that he had nothing to hide and that he did not flee, as he was caught in his home (p. 616 of the protégé). The defendant denied that he had told the policeman during the search and arrest that he had come to him because of something related to the shooting, denied that he had signaled the movement of a gun to the policeman, and denied that he had told the policeman to show him the place where he had hidden the gun in the sea area of Jaffa if he promised to protect his family (pp. 616-617 of Prut). When the defendant was told that the policemen had seen sand on his shoes, he replied that he was walking outside and did not know if there was sand on his shoes (p. 618 of Prut). The defendant confirmed that he did not have a license to carry a weapon (p. 620 of the protégé).