With regard to defendant 3, counsel for defendants 2 and 3 argued that he was not part of the conspiracy. It was claimed that Defendant 3 did not travel with Muhammad to the Occupied Territories to pick up the car, and that Defendant 2 confirmed that he had asked Defendant 3 to come with him on the same day to carry out the drug deal, and that he arrived at the scene with his mobile phone. It was argued that the aforesaid should strengthen the version of Defendant 3 that he knew nothing about the said murder other than that he arrived at the meeting point east of the settlement of Hura, and that he traveled together with Muhammad, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, back from the meeting point to Lod. In addition, it was claimed that Defendant 3 was arrested about two months after the arrest of the other people involved in the case, knowing of the charge of murder, and therefore during his interrogations with the police, he chose not to cooperate and remained silent.
Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 alleged material investigative failures during the interrogations of defendants 2 and 3, including a violation of the right to counsel. It was argued that the violation of the basic rights of defendant 2 directly impaired his ability to conduct his defense in the best possible way. It was further argued that if Defendant 2 had consulted with an attorney from the very beginning, Defendant 2 would have been able to understand the importance of his first interrogation and the importance of the version he gave to the police.
Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 argued at length that with regard to the informant briefing, the conduct of the investigative unit did not conform to the mandatory work procedures. It was argued that this conduct of the investigative unit was in a repetitive pattern of behavior, which is sufficient to indicate the general conduct of the investigative unit.
The defense argued that it should be determined that the combination of the cardinal lines of interrogation that were not fully exhausted, together with the fundamental failures of the investigation, leads to the conclusion that the defendants' version was not born out of thin air and could have received real support from the evidence if the investigative unit had made the most of the data it had in its possession in real time. It was noted that all the data presented to the experienced investigators should have "turned on red lights" regarding the defendants' awareness of the murder and forced the investigating unit to act with extreme caution in their case, as expected of an investigative unit dealing with a murder case. Despite the aforesaid, the defense argued that not only did the investigative unit not act with extreme caution in their case, but it also knowingly closed its eyes when evidence appeared before it that could strengthen the defendants' claims.