In this situation, there is a possibility, even if theoretical, that the story about the drugs to be brought from the settlement of Hura was used by Muhammad as a fictional baseless story, to motivate Defendants 2 and 3 to bring him back from the scene of the murder and to help him bring a car from the Occupied Territories, and it is possible that Muhammad was afraid in the early stages of his interrogation to present the story of the drugs, to involve himself in the story, and also to tell about the same Sayid who "dropped" the plan at the last minute, because this story would have required him to tell various facts (for example, that he came to the settlement of Hura). that they would have linked him to the murder story.
It should be emphasized once again that as proven in his case against Muhammad (and Defendant 1), there is ample evidence that he murdered the deceased beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is the basis point of the case, and therefore any story involving Muhammad as intending to carry out a drug transaction will be immediately disqualified. At the same time, it is possible that Muhammad's claims regarding the story of the drug deal will be given a certain weight insofar as it does not relate to him but to defendants 2 and 3, and to the extent that the matter is backed up by additional evidence, but in any event, the claims of defendants 2 and 3 and the claims of defendant 1 for reasons that prevented them from telling the story of the drugs in the first place will be examined separately and separately from Muhammad's testimony on the matter.
Conspiracy to commit murder in relation to defendants 2,3
Another argument made by counsel for defendants 2 and 3 relates to the fact that the prosecution did not present to the court a single piece of evidence establishing a conspiracy to commit the murder, when according to them there is no dispute that defendants 2 and 3 conspired with Muhammad, but the connection was for the purpose of committing a drug offense.