"Interrogator Munir Al-Assoui: It's all just ..... I came here with my phone..... No matter where I know we're going to have a thing like this, I'd take my phone, I'd drive in my car....... I would come with the phone, I would come with the car with the Ituran, I would do everything.
Interrogator: That's what's strange to me..." (ibid., p. 41, paras. 6-13).
Later in his interrogation, defendant 2 continues to repeat his statement that he did nothing, because he was a victim (ibid., p. 45), and later he cries and says, "I just ate a bag of chava" (ibid., p. 47, s. 9), "I know that I am a victim" (ibid., p. 48, s. 9), and later he says, "I am not a maniac, I made a mistake" (p. 50, s. 22).
Later in his interrogation, Interrogator Zeitoun asks the defendant why he sat in prison for no reason if he didn't do anything, and Defendant 2 replies that if he talks, he will be killed:
"Researcher No. 1, Eyal Zeitoun: Why would you sit quietly, why if you didn't do anything, why?
Interrogee Munir Al-Asswi: They will kill me.
Researcher No. 1, Eyal Zeitoun: Why would they kill you
Interrogated by Munir Al-Assawi: They will say that I am an informant" (ibid., pp. 51, paras. 32-35).
Indeed, in his interrogation of 29 July 2019 (P/12B), as stated, defendant 2 remained silent as a whole and did not say anything, but as noted above, from his words in that interrogation, a story nevertheless emerges according to which the actions he carried out were carried out while being deceived by another and in fact he is innocent. Indeed, it can be argued with a considerable degree of logic that there is a possibility that the defendant's entire version in his said interrogation is a false version, since these are statements made in his fourth interrogation a month after his first interrogation and after evidence was presented to him. At the same time, and despite the above, it will not be possible to completely ignore the fact that this is a version that sounds authentic (the defendant cries quite a bit) to a certain extent, and it is certainly relatively consistent and "corresponds" with the "drug version" that was detailed later before the court (according to which he "ate" a file that has nothing to do with it, and God will pay "them", and he is a victim, who fears that if he speaks he will be eliminated because he will be considered an informant), even if it does not explicitly mention the names of those involved and does not specify to the extent that the transaction was about the theft and sale of drugs. It can also be said that the defendant's claim that he was afraid to tell the truth for fear that he would be eliminated if he spoke does not sound completely unfounded.