The testimony of Defendant 1, which contradicted not only his version of the police but also his response to the indictment, was of an exceptional negative quality, testimony that shows in itself that it is a clear lie, in view of the contradictions, perplexities and difficulties, as detailed by my colleague and as explained at length in the accuser's summaries as well. The testimony of defendant 1 strengthened the totality of the evidence against him, which in fact did not need any corroboration. My colleague rightly held that there was no doubt as to his guilt, and as to his being a joint perpetrator of a planned murder.
With regard to defendants 2 and 3, I will say that in my opinion their version was not convincing, and the contradictions in their version greatly reduced its weight. Moreover, the material contradictions in the testimonies, especially regarding the nature of the planned drug deal, the amount of the drug, the share of the accomplices and what will be done with the drug, seem to indicate that there is no truth in their statements. Combined with the presumption stemming from their physical participation in the event, the prosecution was close to proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly in relation to defendant 2, who was unable to explain convincingly how he understood the need to bring a vehicle from Judea and Samaria. An act that he was a partner in.
However, I agree with my colleague that, despite the proximity to meeting the burden, the threshold has not been crossed, and the prosecution has not been able to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, inter alia, because the physical part of defendants 2 and 3 theoretically allows their version that they did not know the true nature of the operation, the prosecution was unable to point to a motive for them to commit murder without profit, Muhammad did not clearly tell about some of them, and it cannot be said that there are important elements in their version that have been unequivocally refuted, apart from the very contradiction in relation to the versions in the interrogation. Moreover, my friend detailed a number of indications that support their version. Among these indications, special emphasis should be placed on the gap in the depth of the planning cooperation between them and Defendant 1 and Mohammed. As my colleague showed, the latter two left their phones in Lod and planned to produce an "alibi", but did not warn defendants 2 and 3 to do so. Defendants 2 and 3 carried their mobile phones with them, and even drove in the car in which Ituran was in them. In any case, this is a good indication of the gap in the degree of participation in the planning, and thus strengthens the version of defendants 2 and 3, which is based on an argument that such a gap exists.