With regard to Defendant 3, it was argued that Defendant 3 also claimed in his response to the indictment that he knew of any intention other than stealing drugs (section 4 of the indictment), and in his testimony he claimed that only on that day did he know about the drug transaction (P. of December 26, 2024, p. 284), contrary to Muhammad's claim that everyone knew that the drugs were going to be brought in, and also contrary to his answer to the charge that he knew about the drug deal throughout the course of events.
On this issue as well, it can be said that as far as defendant 1 is concerned, his version does indeed raise a certain difficulty, but with regard to defendants 2 and 3, their version presented above is not hidden. With regard to the weight of the drug, it can also be said that when we do not know the weight of a bag of drugs, it cannot be said that the words of defendant 2 directly contradict Muhammad's version on the matter.
Details of the partnership in the drug deal – In her summaries regarding the partnership in the drug deal, the accuser claimed that Muhammad, for his part, confirmed in his testimony at his trial that he and the other defendants were supposed to sell the drug (P/162, p. 570), and at a certain point he claimed that he had reached all the defendants and told them about the deal, and it was agreed that some person would bring the drug, and then all five would be divided in return (P/612, pp. 601-602). (P. of February 14, 2022, p. 259). As for defendant 1, it was noted that he did not know how many drugs were involved, and he did not know who should have sold the drug (P. of December 26, 2022, pp. 314, 333).
It was noted that defendant 2, for his part, claimed that the profits were divided between him and Muhammad, half and half, (P. of January 10, 2023, p. 259), and defendant 3 claimed that he knew about this only on that day and that he had no part in the transaction (P. pp. 310-311).
Even the things mentioned in the matter of the drugs did not raise inexplicable contradictions, since it is possible that defendant 1 did not really participate in the discourse about drugs, defendant 2 really believed that the distribution would be half and half and that he would give defendant 3 part of his profits. Muhammad, for his part, thought that the division would be between everyone, so that he would give Defendant 1 his share and Defendant 2 would give Defendant 3 of his share, and this also corresponds to Defendant 2's version. Defendant 3's words can show a lack of awareness of what he was supposed to receive, when he relied on defendant 2 not to deprive him of his best friend.