As far as they relate to defendant 1, but as far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, I did not find the "contradictions" presented in their statements to be real contradictions that would substantially strengthen the evidence against them, all as will be noted below.
I will add and emphasize that the matter of changing the front in relation to the versions given by the defendants to the police will be examined later on, and at this stage only the contradictions between the defendants and Muhammad in the versions and answers presented to the court will be examined.
Examples of Contradictions in the Versions of Muhammad and the Three Defendants
The trip to the Occupied Territories on 14 June 2019 - In her summary, the accuser claimed that Muhammad, for his part, confirmed that three days before the murder he had gone to Qalqilya to bring the car, on the orders of some person, (P/162, pp. 570 and 598 to 600), and later confirmed that defendants 1 and 2 also took part in this trip. (P/162A). With regard to Defendant 1, the accuser claimed that Defendant 1 admitted to the respondent that he had joined the trip out of boredom in order to shop in the Occupied Territories and they separated. According to the accuser, as far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, defendant 2 admitted to what is stated in the indictment, except for the purpose of the murder, and as far as defendant 3 is concerned, the matter of traveling to the Occupied Territories is irrelevant to him.
An examination of all the details relating to the defendants' versions and Muhammad's version regarding the trip to the Occupied Territories on June 14, 2019, shows that defendant 2 admits to what is stated in the indictment, with regard to that trip (except for the purpose of the murder), and Muhammad also admits to the trip. Defendant 1 also actually admitted to the trip, but changed his version regarding the purpose of the trip, and as a rule, it cannot be said that there were any real contradictions between the defendants and Muhammad in their testimony before the court regarding the trip to the Occupied Territories itself. Defendant 1's initial version in response to the indictment that he went to the Occupied Territories to shop does not match Defendant 2's version and certainly has significance that does not benefit him, but his words later in his interrogation "correct" the discrepancy and ostensibly present one version.