The accuser's claims regarding the defendants' lies to the police
Arguments in relation to the lies of Defendant 1 - Counsel for the accuser claimed that Defendant 1 in his interrogations with the police, oscillates between lies and silence. Counsel for the accuser referred to the summary of defendant 1's substantial lies to the police. Counsel for the accuser noted that these are material lies, which are also based, for example, on the evidence of the documentation from the Dor-Alon Lakiya gas station and from Muhammad's testimony that defendant 1 was with him the entire time. It was also claimed, for example, that when he was asked where he was on the day of the murder between 19:30 and 21:30, he replied that he was in Lod, and this fact contradicted the fact that at that time he was documented with the other defendants and Muhammad at the Dor Alon Lakiya gas station. It was further claimed that the defendant contradicted his statement in his reply to the indictment, where he claimed that at the time of the murder he was "on his way to Lod" (p. 41, paras. 26-28). In further interrogation, defendant 1 claimed that he was not in Judea and Samaria on June 14, 2019, but in his response to the indictment, he had already admitted that he had joined defendant 2 and Muhammad on a trip to Judea and Samaria. Counsel for the accuser argued that the lies of defendant 1, which touch on the essential points – bringing the murder vehicle, the location of the defendant on the day of the murder, and the connection to the getaway vehicle, and later on, also the attempt to create a false alibi, are lies that indicate the defendant's intention to distance himself from the main details that make up the picture of the murder. According to him, it is possible to learn from these lies about defendant 1's clear knowledge of the commission of the murder in advance and his full participation in its preparation and execution.
Arguments in relation to the lies of Defendant 2 - Counsel for the accuser claimed that in his interrogations with the police, Defendant 2 oscillated between lies and silence, and in his case, too, he was asked to refer to the essence of his substantial lies to the police. It was noted, inter alia, that in his first interrogation, when asked when he met Muhammad, he replied that it was at his brother's funeral "two or three weeks ago," and did not mention the day of the trip to the Occupied Territories and the day of the murder. Later, he was asked if Muhammad was driving with him in his car, and he answered in the negative. When asked whether he knew Defendant 1, he replied that he had heard of him and that he had never driven with him in his car. Defendant 2 claimed that on the day of the murder he drove to the Dead Sea, and according to his version, the air conditioner strap in his car was torn and he returned home. (paras. 118-128). Counsel for the accuser claimed that this was his first interrogation, during which there was an attempt by Defendant 2 to distance himself from the preparation of the means for the murder and from those involved in the murder on the day of the murder, and his version contradicts his answer to the indictment, which was also claimed to be a false version. He also detailed, inter alia, that in his second interrogation, Defendant 2 repeated his claim that he had driven his car to the Dead Sea on the day of the murder, and also claimed that he had refueled his car that day at the Paz Tzhuva gas station in an attempt to distance himself from the Dor Alon Lakia gas station. ; It was noted that in his fourth interrogation, when he was thrown at the exhausts of the Ituran company from his car, photographs of maps and more, Defendant 2 continued and remained silent. Counsel for the accuser argued that in the defendant's interrogations there was no trace, even a hint, of his version in his reply to the indictment, by which he tried to distance himself from involvement in the murder. In addition, it was argued that it was puzzling that Defendant 2, who was suspected of murder, had not already told a true version in his interrogation with the police that would clear him of this suspicion. In addition, it was argued that, even in his testimony in court, defendant 2 did not give any satisfactory explanation for this question. Counsel for the accuser noted that the version of defendant 2 in court, according to which he traveled with defendant 3 to Lakiya where he met with Muhammad and defendant 1, and later traveled with defendant 3 to the Hura area, was made as part of a plan initiated by Muhammad to bring drugs from the Hura area to Lod in order to sell them (hereinafter: the "drug version"), is a suppressed version, and false. Counsel for the accuser argued that on the basis of the recording of defendant 2 on July 29, 2019, without his knowledge by the investigator, his false version regarding the drugs was constructed as a defense claim. It was argued that the explanation of defendant 2 that he did not tell the police about the drug version, since it is not acceptable in the society to which he belongs to incriminating others, does not constitute a satisfactory answer.