The defendants' lies to the police: During their interrogations with the police, defendants 2 and 3 remained silent in some of their interrogations and the rest of the time they lied in their answers, and in fact did not give the version they later gave to the court. A defendant's lies can certainly serve as corroborating evidence against the defendant and in some cases even constitute supporting evidence that will lead to his conviction.
According to the case law, before reaching a conclusion regarding the defendant's lies, it is appropriate to examine whether the defendant had a real substantive reason that led him to lie in his interrogations, whether due to distress, confusion and pressure, or due to some other circumstance.
In Criminal Appeal 543/79 Nagar v. State of Israel 38 (1) 113 (198), it was held, inter alia, that: "It is not permissible to repeat and emphasize that evidence regarding falsehood, as it were, must be carefully examined: the defendant may raise a false claim not necessarily because he committed the offense attributed to him, but because of other reasons, whether they are reasons involved in the commission of another offense or personal reasons. which do not have a criminal label attached to them. Therefore, it is appropriate for the court to reconsider carefully, in light of the totality of the facts and the arguments before it, that perhaps the lie, although it is open, stems from an embezzlement, which has no connection to the particular charge discussed by the court (see also Criminal Appeal 125/50 [9] at p. 541), but stems from a different reason."
Testimony of Defendant 2 regarding his lies to the police - In response to the indictment and his testimony in court, Defendant 2 reiterated his claim that during his interrogations with the police (P/12 Disc - P/12A Transcript - P/12B) he was afraid to tell the truth about what happened and to tell about the "drug version", and his claim was that he lied because he was afraid of Muhammad's family. Defendant 2 stated this, against the background of emphasizing the fact that his family had already suffered from the murder of his brother due to a dispute, and in these circumstances he could not give the true version in the police interrogation, since then he should have incriminated Muhammad, the friend of his murdered brother, and risked further revenge.