In his cross-examination, he was asked and answered :
"Q. I couldn't figure it out. I'm telling you that you're not a person who doesn't understand the matter.. You are a person with a head, You are a businessman, Engaged in Trading, You are involved in politics in the Gilboa, You are not a stupid person. When you talk to him about the things that are alive and breathing, you talk to Eyal about the weapon and you understand that it's about the weapon and now everything you do here today is trying to make yourself as if you are a person who doesn't understand the matter, As if you don't know anything, This is not true. You know you're talking to him about weapons, That you're talking to luck about weapons, You say the word to her "Amal"VIII"?
- I was interrogated about Amal"VIII.
....
- Tell me Muhammad, You are asked about Amal"VIII, You reply to Amal"VIII?
- False, I don't reply to Amal"VIII
- So what are you talking about with her??
- I'm talking to Mazal about an untrue story. And there were many other things that we talked about that didn't belong to the case at all. Because I was sure it would stay between us".
(Pro. of May 8, 2017, p. 338, questions 17-20, questions 27-31).
He also claims:
"Q. I'm telling you that you told her that there's more hope"VIII, Worse Things You Know About?
- I didn't say hope."VIII. Yes, maybe there are worse things".
(Pro. of May 8, 2017, p. 343, paras. 10-12).
From all of the above, it is clear that from the defendant's statements in P/172, it appears that he admitted that he received the weapons in his car, that he knew that it was a weapon, and that he knew the quantities.
If the defendant did not know anything about the weapons as his defense version, why did he ask the investigators to negotiate his return? The attempt to get an explanation from the defendant was unsuccessful.
The defendant's testimony is unreliable, tendentious, partly illogical, and riddled with contradictions
- The defendant's testimony was full of contradictions, which were brought against him and he was given the opportunity to explain them, and he did not do so. Some of the contradictions arise from the above quotes, and another part will be detailed below.
First, with regard to his presence at Beit Kama at the time of the incident - 29 April 2016 - it was initially claimed at the response stage that "the defendant was not at the Beit Kama junction on 29 April 2016, at any point on that day, the defendant was not at the Beit Kama junction" (Par. 27.2.2017, p. 32, paras. 18-19).