Later, the accuser's counsel noted that on December 26, 2022, defendant 1 went up to the witness stand, and suddenly confessed to some of what he had denied in the police interrogations and in response to the indictment, and also "jumped" into the "cart" of the drug version while changing the façade.
Later, according to the accuser's counsel, the testimonies of defendants 2 and 3 were heard, who tried on their way to "stick" to their answer to the charge, which began to change the façade in presenting the drug version.
According to the accuser's counsel in their testimonies before the court, the defendants tried to evade responsibility for their actions by means of the aforementioned drug version, but as expected, in view of the fact that this was a false version, which was also a suppressed version, they were not able to present an orderly and logical version, but fragments of puzzling and contradictory details, sometimes between the defendants themselves, sometimes between the defendants and Mohammed, and many times between the defendants and the evidence in the case. In light of all this, it was argued that the aforementioned facts would make it easy to determine that the drug version that was claimed while changing the front never actually occurred.
The state's counsel presented a table with references to the defendants' and Muhammad's statements in court on various issues, indicating that the drug version not only did not benefit the defendants, but also made it possible to prove that their statements were false statements that constituted support for the rest of the accuser's evidence.
I will note that this is a table that relates to both Muhammad and the three defendants in the case in a unified manner. The table is currently presented at the time of the hearing in Muhammad's case, but additional reference to its conclusions will also be given during the hearing of the defendants that are the subject of our discussion.
Already now, and before examining the accuser's arguments in the matter, I will note that in my understanding there is truth in the accuser's arguments