Defendant 1 also tried to stage an "alibi" with Muhammad, a fact that was not claimed or proven with respect to defendants 2 and 3.
This is not a case in our case of the clear "Pelginan Divora" since in practice it is possible to give credence to all of Muhammad's words to the informant, but it is certainly a case in which it is possible to find in Muhammad's words many clear things that can lead to the conviction of defendant 1, and other things that are not unequivocal with regard to defendants 2 and 3, and in additional evidence that was presented there were things regarding defendants 2 and 3 that would be sufficient to strengthen their version that they did not know about the intention to murder. and other things that will strengthen the conclusion that defendant 1 murdered the deceased.
Summary of Defendants 2 and 3
In all the circumstances of the matter detailed above with regard to defendants 2 and 3, I did not find that evidence was presented in the case of defendants 2 and 3, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove the offense of murder attributed in the indictment to defendant 2 and to prove the offense of aiding and abetting murder attributed to defendant 3.
The confession of defendants 2 and 3 – the legal significance of the conclusion in relation to defendants 2 and 3
At the same time, defendants 2 and 3 admit to the fact, as stated, mainly the physical element of the indictment. In other words, they played a role in the murder committed by Muhammad and Defendant 1, in that they met on the spot and Defendant 2 actually served as a driver of a getaway vehicle from the south. Defendant 2 also admitted that he had worked with Muhammad to bring the car that was actually used for the murder.
However, they claimed that they did not know that the plot was to commit murder, and believed that it was a plot to steal a dangerous cannabis-type drug, in the form of "hydro", in order to bring it from the south for distribution in the Lod area. In other words, according to them, in view of the deception taken by Muhammad and Defendant 1, they were not aware of the true nature of the criminal conspiracy. In view of their mistake, the mental element required for a conviction for an offense was impaired.