Counsel for the defendant argued that in the framework of the police interrogation, the defendant was asked to "incriminate" Shadi, but that the matter must be examined in their context, and this is not what the investigation reveals in P/172.
The defendant tries to refute the allegations raised against him, and to claim his innocence by blaming others, including Shadi, thus minimizing his own part in the affair, and from time to time the interrogator tells him to say what he says, to say his version, which is in fact the defendant's defense version.
See the testimony of the interrogator A.A.13:
"Q. ... You can browse Ltd' 2 and- 3 And to explain to us what happens in the investigation, I will divide it as the first part of the investigation until Mazal Srihan enters, that it enters in a' 17 Wear' 9 ?
- I understand from the defendant that he is trying to develop a conversation with me, And during the conversation he says that he has something to tell us and what to give us, And he tries to get himself and his son out as little as possible. From the incident, from the outcome, from the punishment, From his part, He tries to minimize his share and that of his son, It enhances the part of the"P Shadi Bashir. During the entire interrogation and he knows me not from the first second interrogation, He knows that I am an investigator and not an investigation officer, It has nothing to do with intelligence and cannot make promises, And I note that I'm an investigator, And I kept mentioning it, And I have no authority to make promises, And you hear it clearly and you see it black and white, During the questioning he tells me that he can give us more than we know in terms of Amal"VIII. If I know about 82 Pomegranates, so he can give me more than that.. He also told me during the interrogation that he had given money to Shadi Bashir three times for Amal deals"VIII".
(Proc. of April 18, 2017, p. 64, questions 24-32, p. 65, questions 1-4).
The discourse about things that the defendant might say against Shadi does not come up in the discourse that seeks or proposes to the defendant to be a state witness. This is only a reference to the defense arguments of the defendant, who calls Shadi a liar, and to the defendant's ability to defend himself, and to refute the allegations raised against him by Shadi himself. The defendant claims his innocence and defense by trying to damage Shadi's credibility and argue against the truth of what he claimed against him, calling him a liar.