In relation to the aforesaid, in the defendant's last interrogation on October 16,2023, he was accused of not having a suitable license for a Dodge vehicle, and in response he replied with the question: "What, my license is not suitable? " (P/27(a), p. 5). This is nothing but innocence intended to diminish the incriminating significance inherent in the fact that he replaced Karem and drove in his place at the Dodge. The defendant is well versed in the licensing ranks and as quoted above, he even asked the ophthalmologist to give him permission to issue a license for a vehicle up to 12 tons.
The defendant's argument is that this was a "regular" road accident. Against the background of this claim, and against the background of the fact that he was suspected of murder, the defendant was expected - even though it is not his duty and even though he has the right to remain silent - to cooperate with the investigative unit in referring to any evidence that would support his version, to perform reconstructions, and to take any other action that would confirm his version. This is especially true after incriminating evidence has already been collected, which at least shifts the burden to the defendant to convince him that this was not a road accident.
In practice, the defendant more than once concealed details, remained silent, claimed that he did not remember or did not want to repeat things that he claimed he had already answered. Thus, for example, in his third interrogation (P/26) the defendant refrained from answering the vast majority of the questions, repeating that what he had to say in the previous interrogation, and alternatively, he claimed that he did not remember what happened:
Q: When exactly did you see Muhammad for the first time before you got into it with the Dodge?
A: I don't know, I told you what I had. It was a car accident.
Q: Tell us about the incident of breaking the windshield of your Toyota vehicle.
A: I told you it was a car accident.
Q: I'm asking about the windshield.