'Why change drivers if you didn't see crash?'
Jamal has said that he saw the Skoda go into the central reservation and thought it had just gone onto the opposite carriageway. Mr Thompson asked why he felt the need to switch driving with Natasha Akhtar if he hadn't witnessed the fatal collision.
Jamal tells the jury: "I didn't want to drive because of what had just happened." Mr Thompson asked: "And what had just happened?"
Jamal said he thought the car had crossed over to the other side of the carriageway but add that he thought the car might have gone into a barrier.
Mr Thompson said: "If it had gone into the air and crashed into the bushes it would have been in a pretty serious accident."
Jamal replied that he was "shaken" by what happened and "didn't think everything would be alright". He said: "They possibly could have got into an accident."
The 14 minute phone call during the chase
Jamal was asked by Mr Thompson about the 14-minute call between the two cars. Mr Thompson asked if Jamal was talking to Rekan Karwan, driving the Audi TT, so they could "co-ordinate the movements of the two vehicles" so they could block the Skoda in.
Jamal denied the Audi was involved in trying to block the Skoda and said he was talking to Mohammed Patel and not Rekan Karwan.
Mr Thompson then asked if he was "trying to force [the Skoda] to stop" and Jamal agreed that he was. Mr Thompson said: "That meant the driver of the Skoda would be taking evasive action if he didn't want to stop?" Jamal agreed that was true.
'Bored with Leicester'
Raees Jamal has insisted he only invited the others out to socialise together - not to have superior numbers for the Tesco meeting. Jamal claims he only heard about Mahek and Ansreen's blackmail problem while he was outside Rekan Karwan's home in Tomlin Road.
But before that, at 12.27pm on February 11, Jamal phoned Mohammed Patel. He told the jury: "I called him out to chill. I was just seeing what he was doing."
He said they were planning on going out "to chill out of town" because he was "bored with Leicester".
Why didn't statement mention wheel brace?
Mr Thompson asked Jamal why he never mentioned in his defence case statement being asked by Mohammed Patel for a "tool" to use for protection. Jamal replied: "To cover myself. It might get me in trouble."
Mr Thompson said: "You were in trouble already." Jamal replied: "Yeah, I know."
'Never heard "tooled up"'
Mr Thompson questioned Jamal about the wheel brace he had given Mohammed Patel. Mr Thompson asked: "What does the expression 'tooled up' mean to you?"
Jamal replied: "I've never heard it. I wouldn't know".
He admitted he had given Mohammed Patel a wheel brace for self-defence.
'I thought it was going to be a simple arrangement'
Jamal said he thought the discussion with Saqib to get the blackmail material would be short and that he "thought it was going to be a simple arrangement". Mr Thompson asked why it was necessary for Patel to have a weapon. Jamal replied: "It was just in case they had come with extra people - in case Saqib had come with his friends."
Mr Thompson said: "The reason you had everyone there was that you knew he might not hand the phone over. The reason Mr Patel was there was to make up the numbers, wasn't it?"
Jamal said that wasn't true and they were all out socialising. Mr Thompson said the group had weapons in case the phone wasn't handed over but Jamal said that wasn't true and there were no balaclavas.
Eight people are on trial for killing Saqib Hussain and Mohammed Hashim Ijazuddin
www.leicestermercury.co.uk