In summary, counsel for defendants 2 and 3 argued that this is a circumstantial case in which the accumulation of all of the prosecution's evidence does not lead to a single logical conclusion that the defendants were aware of the event that is the subject of the indictment and that they took part in its planning or execution. It was argued that the accuser did not meet the burden of proof imposed on her, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. It was also argued that it was proven that the defendants had no motive to take part in the incident that is the subject of the indictment, and in the accumulation of additional evidence, together with the many failures in the investigation and the need to determine that Muhammad was the murderer of the deceased, it was argued that defendants 2 and 3 should be acquitted of all the offenses attributed to them in the indictment.
Discussion and Decision
Muhammad Assiwi
Muhammad's Testimony
According to the facts of the indictment, the main person involved in the commission of the offenses detailed in the indictment is Mr. Muhammad Asawi, who is not a defendant in this case and whose trial was conducted separately in this court, before a different panel, and therefore we are obligated to examine the evidence against Muhammad relating to the commission of the murder before examining the evidence against the defendants.
There is no dispute between the parties that the main evidence in the case is Muhammad's testimony (as an "incriminating" accomplice). Muhammad's words were received through an informant, and the foreign statement he gave to the informant was accepted in court in accordance with section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance, which requires "a word to corroborate." Muhammad is also an accomplice witness, who at the time of his testimony had not yet been sentenced, and therefore there is a need in his case as well as an evidentiary addition of "between a matter of reinforcement and assistance" (another criminal appeal 6325/11 Shlomo Fahima v. State of Israel).