At this point, Defendant 3 began to answer questions about his silence in his interrogations with the police, and in his statement he explained that he remained silent because he did not want to incriminate Muhammad and Defendant 2 of drugs and murder. He said he remained silent because even if he had told about the drugs, he would have had to incriminate them. The defendant explained that he was indeed charged with murder, but if he had spoken he would have had to talk about the drugs as well, and continued that he did not know exactly what Muhammad had done, but if he had spoken he might have gotten him into trouble (ibid., p. 294, s. 19). In his cross-examination, defendant 3 said that he was still afraid of Muhammad's family, who he said could do "a lot of things" to him, and that he mentioned to explain that Muhammad: "He has his uncle, haven't you heard of him? Issam..... I'm telling you, Issam Abu Hajaj, his uncle...... He murdered his daughter, murdered." The defendant details his fear that he will be said to have "brought us down" (ibid., pp. 299, paras. 10-20).
It should be emphasized that from all the evidence presented, it emerged that Defendant 3 was not an independent party in all the events and in fact he functioned as an appendix to Defendant 2 in the events in question.
In all the circumstances of the case, and in light of all that has been detailed above regarding the connection between the actions of Defendant 2 and the actions of Defendant 3, it cannot be said that the suppressed version of Defendant 3 as presented above was a version that is detached from reality, and in fact after it was determined that the version of Defendant 2 could not be invalidated (and even after it was proven that Defendant 3 arrived at the scene of the murder with his mobile device, and that he had nothing to do with the trip to bring a Mazda vehicle from the Occupied Territories), there will be room to determine that even with regard to defendant 3, there will be no reason to dismiss his version in court, and this fact is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.