Defendant 3's argument in his response and testimony in court is that he did indeed wait for Muhammad and defendant 1 to arrive at the "meeting point", but he did so as part of the "drug program" and not as part of a plan to murder the deceased. The "real" evidence against defendant 3 that implicates him in the offense of aiding and abetting murder is the evidence relating to his participation in a conversation between the three defendants and Muhammad at the Dor Alon gas station in the Lakiya area, in making the phone call between his mobile phone and Muhammad's "operational" phone around the time of the murder, waiting at the "meeting point" after the murder, and traveling together with the other defendants and Muhammad from the Lakiya area to Lod after the murder.
During the testimony of defendant 3 in court, the defense confirmed that at the time of the murder, defendant 3 was in possession of a telephone numbered 058-7863841 (transcript of March 21, 2023, p. 296, s. 29 to p. 297, s. 13).
According to the accused, an examination of the output of the media data (P/160, P/160B) shows that on the day of the murder, incoming and outgoing calls were made between defendant 3 and Muhammad, who was in possession of device 287 in the period between the end of the meeting of all four at the Dor Alon station in Lakiya and the connection at the meeting point, after the murder and the escape to Lod. A perusal of the transcripts of the conversations P/16/B shows that telephone conversations took place between defendant 3 and Muhammad between 18.21 and 19.31, while prior to the murder and when defendants 2 and 3 were stationed at the meeting point, and this does not contradict defendant 3's version as it was brought before the court.
Defendant 3 is not given any real attention in the conversations between Muhammad and the informant, and I accept the position of his counsel that the evidence in his case is mainly circumstantial evidence that is not of the highest standard, and that it would not be easy to base a conviction for the offense of aiding and abetting murder on it in the first place, in light of his silence, when it would not be unreasonable to assume that his silence was out of necessity, after he apparently knew that defendant 2 was silent in his interrogations.