The defendant claimed that while he was in the wash, he pressed the accelerator pedal, due to the fact that the car had been parked for almost a month and a half in an industrial zone. Initially, he claimed that pressing the gas pedal in the Avensis did not make any noise because it was not a truck and "it is gasoline that does not make noise." These statements contradict what he said in his fourth interrogation, where he described that "I went into the wash and gave gas twice and Muhammad asked me not to make any noise because it was close to their house." This contradiction was also hurled at the defendant in his testimony, in response to which he explained that at first he made a noise by pressing the gas because the car was not working well, but "after he told me, I did not make any noise" (p. 333). On the face of it, this is a contradiction that is in the margins, but it does reconcile with the defendant's prominent tendency to try to downplay the importance of the incident in the wash, while creating a false representation that it was not at all connected to the argument that was mainly between Tawfik and the deceased.
In one of his interrogations (P/8, p. 11), the defendant explained that he did not notice the deceased before running over him because he was looking at his mobile phone. In his testimony in court, the defendant completely retracted this version, without explaining why he made the statement in the first place, sufficing with the fact that it was "not true" (p. 358). Specifically, this is a material detail at the core of the dispute, a detail that is ostensibly supposed to explain why the defendant did not notice the deceased and did not brake, and thus give his actions a touch of negligence rather than murder intent. The ease with which the defendant added details to his version, changed it or detracted from it, makes it difficult to establish any factual finding on reliance on it.
In this last matter, the defendant claims, as stated, that he does not see at all in his left eye: "How did I see him? I have an eye that I don't see at all" (P/24, Q. 48); Q: Do you not see at all, or do you see a little? A: Zero" (P/8(a) Q. 27). A review of the medical documents submitted by the defense shows that his vision in his left eye is not good, but it is not stated that he does not see in this eye, when the distinction in his case is "amblyopia" (lazy eye). Not only that, the ophthalmologist who examined him not only did not find such a condition of vision that prevented him from driving, but also believed that his vision was sufficient for the purpose of granting a license for a cargo vehicle. It should be noted that even in relation to these things, the defendant was found to be telling the truth, when he claimed in his interrogation that the doctor who examined him was not found to be telling the truth." .. He told me that there was an eye in which I could not see, and that was why he could not give me such permission" (P/8A, S. 35).