Attorney Simon further argued that when a witness is brought to testify and the prosecution does not prepare him or tell him that he will receive a defense, and does everything possible to keep that witness silent, it cannot be said that the witness did not want to speak.
According to him, making use of section 10A is not the rule, but the exception, and the rule is that the court will prefer the statements of witnesses, and in any case, when an external statement is used, corroborating evidence must be brought.
The defense attorney also claimed that the second time Muhammad came to court and was already able to speak, he was told by the prosecution that those who brought him to court the second time were the defense attorneys of the defendants in the case, and that he was also told that he was brought by the defense attorneys because the same defense attorneys wanted to "tailor" him in a murder case.
Later, during Adv. Sadeh's written summaries, Adv. Sadeh further argued that in every case managed by the prosecution, the prosecution meets with the prosecution's witnesses in order to refresh their testimony, but in Muhammad's case, the accuser chose to act differently. According to him, there is no dispute that Muhammad was not summoned for a refresher at the accuser's office, and that no refresher was conducted with him. He was not confronted with the data that emerged from his statements, he was not asked about contradictions that arose, and he was not confronted with the versions of the defendants in the case.
It was argued that only after a number of questions in which Muhammad did not cooperate with the plaintiff did the accuser ask to submit his statements in accordance with section 10A, and according to him, if the accuser had summoned Muhammad to her office, prepared him for testimony and granted him confidentiality, that whatever was said at the hearing would not be used against him in the proceedings being conducted in his case, we could have been in a different situation. The problem is that when Muhammad is brought to testify in court without preparation or a substantive explanation about the testimony while his trial is underway, and he is afraid to testify in a way that will harm him, it is not possible to expect him to answer any question and rightly so.