An examination of the defense's summaries in chapter eight, which deals with the issue of motive, shows that in fact the defense does not dispute the very existence of the bloody dispute between the Musrati family and the family of the deceased, but only the claim that the defendant himself had any part or involvement in that dispute. In this regard, it should be said that indeed no direct evidence was brought linking the defendant himself to the violent conflict, but the very existence of a protracted violent conflict between close family members of the defendant, including those who live close to him, and the members of the deceased's family, ostensibly establishes the existence of a possible motive for his and others' joint activity to harm the deceased, alongside the totality of the additional evidence that was presented.
Moreover, the information provided by the defendant himself indicates that despite the claim that he was not personally involved in any violent conflict, about a year prior to his arrest he himself had been the victim of three or four assassination attempts, including an incident in which about 40 live bullets were fired at him, and another incident of shooting at him, in which a bullet penetrated through the window of the car he was driving in and hit him nearby. In another case, the attackers were satisfied with firing in the air, and once again the shooters on a motorcycle appeared in front of him, but were unable to fire at him. The defendant claimed that he did not know the identity of the shooters and whether there was a dispute between his family members and the Al-Wahwah, but insisted that he was not involved in any dispute and believed that it was a mistake in identification or perhaps that the opposing party chose to harm, as sometimes happens, a family member who is a normative person who is not involved in the dispute [transcript of September 11, 2024, at pp. 604-609].
As will be further clarified at length, the defendant's versions and explanations cannot be given any credence, and once again we are left with a clear and incriminating factual picture according to which the defendant's immediate family members are in an ongoing bloody dispute with the deceased's family, and the defendant himself is the target of assassination, not once or twice, but on four different occasions, according to his own testimony, and we are asked to believe that there is no connection whatsoever between the two things and that the defendant is indifferent to the conflict and does not take any part in it. This is an argument that is contrary to common sense and the logic of things and cannot be accepted. The mere proof of the conflict is sufficient to establish a possible motive for the action of the defendant and his accomplices, and the fact that the defendant himself was a repeat target for assassination during the period when the conflict was already in force confirms this assumption and strengthens the existence of a motive on the part of the defendant to harm the deceased. Therefore, even this fact strengthens, if only to some extent, the body of circumstantial evidence against him.