It is also possible to agree with the defense that in the matter of defendant 2's trip to the Occupied Territories with Muhammad, which was intended to bring the vehicle in which the murder was committed, the accuser presented no indication that the entry of defendant 2 and Muhammad from two different checkpoints was planned in advance (it should be emphasized that during the dubbing conversations, Muhammad spoke about bringing the vehicle into Israel but did not explain why the defendants' entry into Israel was done through different checkpoints). Nor is there any indication that Defendant 2 knew that this was done with the aim of bringing a stolen vehicle (when Defendant 2 said that Muhammad said that he was going to bring a car of paint) or in order to prevent future discovery, and it can also be assumed that Defendant 2, who has no criminal record, was not familiar with the "laws" of drug offenses and did not understand that even though it was a matter of bringing dozens of drug provident funds, Still, obtaining a vehicle for the purpose of committing an offense is an unusual action, and obtaining a vehicle should indicate more evidence of preparations for a much more serious offense.
Notwithstanding all of the above, we are still obliged to say that the accumulation of actions carried out by defendants 2 and 3 detailed above, and which the state has proven (together with direct statements made by Muhammad to the informant whose meaning is not sufficiently clear), will establish a threshold of circumstantial evidence that will certainly have, in the absence of other evidence, to implicate the defendants in the actual involvement of the deceased in the offense of murder.
At the same time, it should be noted that among the additional circumstantial evidence that was brought, evidence was also presented in support of the claims of defendants 2 and 3 that they did not know about Muhammad's murder intentions, and that they arrived at the gas station in Lakiya and the meeting point as part of the plan to bring dozens of kilograms of hydro from the south to Lod, and it will be said already at this stage that this is weighty evidence that will not make it possible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants 2 and 3 committed what is attributed to them in the indictment.