At the same time, during the presentation of his version in court, Defendant 2 explained why he had suppressed his version in his first interrogations at the police station (he was afraid of the defendant's family, and a brother who had been murdered not long before), and in addition, he presented in court real claims that were proven, relating to the manner in which he behaved during the incident (arriving at the event with his phone, his car with Ituran and flip-flops) and his relatively slow drive back from the area of the incident. that it was found to be corroborated by Muhammad's spontaneous statements to the informant, despite the importance of the speed of travel from Muhammad's point of view for the purpose of proving the alibi, and that these claims were sufficient to cause the listener to assume that they had weight, and that, despite the other weighty evidence against him, it would not be possible to determine that he was an accomplice in the murder plot, and this fact is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
Testimony of Defendant 3 in court - Defendant 3 testified before the court on 21 March 2023 and 26 March 2023. In his main interrogation of March 21, 2023 (with regard to the accuser's claims regarding the statements of defendant 3 in his cross-examination – see the chapter "Development of the Defendants' Versions" above), the defendant stated that for the past nine years he has been living with his cousin Defendant 2, who is his brother. He also said that he had known Muhammad since the hospitalization of Marwan, the brother of Defendant 2, in the hospital, he knew that Muhammad and Marwan were dealing in drugs, and he and Muhammad became friends. (P. 21 March 2023, pp. 280, 281). The defendant described that he had no family relationship with Muhammad and that today there is a dispute between the families because: "He brought us down... who took us on a trip that day and don't know what he did. Here we are today, for the past four years we have been running a case for things we did not do" (ibid., p. 283, paras. 23-25). Defendant 3 said that Defendant 2 was the one who approached him and suggested that he join the drive south on the day of the incident, and said that he knew nothing about the trip to the Occupied Territories (ibid., pp. 284-286). Defendant 3 said that Defendant 2 came to him and told him, "Come with me, there's some kind of livelihood, we're going to bring green. You'll just drive and that's it, I'll give you money." According to defendant 3's description on the day of the incident, when he and defendant 2 were sitting at the gas station, and later about an hour later Muhammad and defendant 1 joined them, they talked about the plan to steal drugs, but according to him, he himself did not delve into the conversation, even though he knew about their intention to steal drugs (ibid., p. 287). According to him, at a certain point Muhammad and Defendant 1 drove and when Muhammad got out, he told them, "I'll beep for you... Follow me." According to him, they were waiting at the gas station and Muhammad apparently beeped, they didn't hear, so Muhammad called him and told him, "Follow me," he spoke to Muhammad on the phone and Muhammad directed him to a spot where he waited with Defendant 2 "until they bring the drugs." (ibid., 288 S. 29). According to him, at the waiting point, he smoked and slept in the car, and he woke up only when he heard Defendant 2 and Muhammad arguing, when Defendant 2 said to Muhammad, "Where's the green? Why didn't you brought?" and Muhammad replied, "Go, go" (ibid., pp. 290, paras. 8-20), at which point defendant 3 fell asleep and woke up in Lod. Defendant 3 also said that he understood only two days after the news that a murder had been committed.