The Difference in the Court's Attitude to Defendant 1 and Defendants 2 and 3 - "Plaginan Speech"
In the words of counsel for defendant 1, Adv. Simon, in his oral arguments, it was argued that if the court determines that the "drug version" is relevant to defendants 2 and 3, it will not be able to split the speech and determine that this is an event in which the rule of "plaginen speech" will be applied, and it will not be able to determine that defendant 1 came to murder, but defendants 2 and 3 came to make a drug deal. According to him, these are not two different sets of facts, and the prosecution also links the affair to one film, and therefore the silence of defendant 1 may be problematic, but it does not create the evidence required to say that there was no drug deal as far as he was concerned.
Hearing – There is a great deal of evidence detailed above, which will be sufficient to distinguish between Defendant 1 and Defendants 2 and 3. Thus, for example, in his statement to the informant, Muhammad explicitly stated that Defendant 1 "saw everything", i.e., saw the murder, and as far as Defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, there were no words in Muhammad's words that would explicitly and clearly link them to the murder incident.
In addition, as noted above, defendant 1 drove together with Muhammad in the Mazda and followed the deceased by car together with Muhammad, until the vehicle arrived at the scene of the murder, while defendants 2 and 3 remained at the junction site far from the murder area and were not involved in the murder itself.
Defendant 1 left his phone in the city of Lod along with Muhammad's mobile phone, at the relevant times of the murder, and on the other hand, defendants 2 and 3 arrived at a meeting point with their mobile phones, while defendant 2 was driving in his car with the Ituran device with flip-flops on his feet.
It should also be noted that Muhammad was angry with Defendant 2 for his slow drive back to the city of Lod, and no similar evidence was presented with respect to Defendant 1, all of the aforesaid facts will emerge, as stated, that there is evidence that will be sufficient to make a real distinction between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, which will allow for separate treatment of Defendant 1 and Defendants 2 and 3. With regard to the murder incident.