According to Adv. Sadeh, even if Muhammad was convicted by law before the panel that heard his case, this does not constitute evidence in his case, and in his case, the prosecution is obligated to prove that Muhammad murdered the deceased beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was also argued that if the accuser was not able to establish the commission of the murder by Muhammad, then there is no reason to claim the existence of a connection with defendants 1 and 2, since according to the indictment, it is not a mere conspiracy, but only a connection with Muhammad.
Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 reiterated in their summaries the arguments presented above and added that although Muhammad had a motive to murder the deceased as the evidence indicates, according to them, a motive is not "golden evidence" and around that motive the accuser must establish a broad foundation that proves Muhammad's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Muhammad's intention to murder – Later in its summaries, the defense noted that in paragraph 3 of the indictment it was noted that "it was in the heart of the person who made the decision to cause the murder of the deceased", and in this regard, counsel for defendant 1 noted that in the Supreme Court's ruling, it has been held more than once that even where a person armed himself with a firearm and fired at another person and caused his death, it cannot be ruled out that his intention could have been other than murder. He may even intend to injure or mutilate.
In their remarks, counsel for defendant 1 referred to the judgment in criminal appeal 1532/08 Turk v. State of Israel, where the case of a person who, following a dispute with another person, arrived a few days later at the house where the person was staying carrying a loaded gun, and after getting within a few meters of that person, fired several shots at him, but did not hit him, and when the same person tried to escape, he shot him again and hit him in the back. and caused his death.
In the Supreme Court's judgment, the court did hold in a majority opinion that the chain of events that led to the fatal result does not, beyond a reasonable doubt, constitute evidence that the appellant wanted the death of the deceased, but a review of the Supreme Court's judgment in the said case shows that there is a material difference between the facts of that case and the case that is the subject of our discussion.