In a normal but reasonable situation, if Muhammad had told Defendant 2 that it was a trip for the purpose of murder, he would have also made sure that the defendant would have disguised his involvement, arrived in a vehicle that was not his own and without an iteran, and would certainly have made sure that the defendant arrived even without his personal cell phone. Muhammad would also suggest that at least Defendant 2 take care of him and Defendant 3 in advance for an alibi.
The fact that Muhammad chose to act with great "professionalism" when it came to him and Defendant 1, but left Defendant 2 to act "amateurishly" when committing his acts, while exposing himself (Muhammad) to fear of discovery, will strengthen to a certain extent the possibility that this was not done by chance, and in fact during the management of the events Muhammad chose to conceal from Defendant 2 the true purpose of the acts (at the risk of exposing himself and Defendant 1). Either out of fear that Defendant 2 would "talk" if he shared the secret of the matter, or out of concern that Defendant 2 (who has no criminal record) would refuse to cooperate if he was told that the purpose of the acts was to kill another. This also raises the possibility that Muhammad "used" Defendant 2 as a tool to carry out his moves, while deceiving him in a story about stealing drugs, without telling him the truth. In these circumstances, in any case, there is some concern that Defendant 2 was allowed by Muhammad to be exposed to the fear of disclosure, when he himself acted as aforesaid with great "professionalism" was not done out of sheer negligence, and it seems that the fact that Defendant 2 arrived at the incident completely exposed will attest, at least to some extent, to the fact that he did not know the purpose of the action.
Statements of Defendant 3 to the Police, P/14, P/15.
According to the indictment, Defendant 3 was not part of the conspiracy, he did not travel with Muhammad to the Occupied Territories, and it seems that if the evidence in relation to Defendant 2 cracks, it will also directly affect the evidence in relation to Defendant 3.