With regard to the evidence relating to the waiting at the meeting point, it was argued by counsel for defendants 2-3 that the presence of a defendant at the scene of the commission of an offense does not constitute evidence to prove his participation in the commission of the offense, and it was argued that in the present case the defendants gave an orderly and logical version as to their presence at the meeting point, and this would create a real doubt that they were aware of the murder.
I do not accept this argument of the defense. The meeting point was located in an area defined by defendant 3 as an empty place like a desert (P. 21 March 2023, p. 288, s. 25). This is a desolate place located east of the settlement of Hura, and it is very far from the home of defendants 2 and 3, and the arrival at the site is a logical presumption (which can be refuted) of the intention of participating in the murder plot.
Moreover, the same orderly and reasonable version as stated by counsel for defendants 2 and 3 was given by the defendants as a suppressed version only in court, and they did not give the same version during their interrogation by the police.
The presence of the defendants together with Muhammad and defendant 1 at the Dor-Alon gas station in Kia about an hour and a half before the murder, and their presence at the meeting point with Muhammad and defendant 1 in the area of the settlement of Hura, 5 minutes after the murder, casts a real shadow over the defense's arguments regarding the weakness of the circumstantial evidence.
The travel of Defendant 2 with Muhammad and Defendant 1 to the Occupied Territories for the purpose of bringing a vehicle to be used to commit a crime (according to Defendant 2 for the purpose of a drug deal) and returning to Israel through various crossings, establishes a presumption that Defendant 2 knew of an intention to commit a criminal offense that is more serious than the offense of bringing drugs.
It should be said that although with regard to the quadruple meeting at the Dor Alon station in Kia, it is possible to accept the argument of counsel for defendants 2 and 3 that the accuser is unable to present any indication of the nature of the conversation that the four spoke at the gas station, after the defendants remained silent at the police station regarding the subject of the conversation at the station, but the court stated that the conversation was about the subject of drugs, (with the exception of defendant 3, who claimed that he did not take part in the conversation).