Arguments regarding the lies of Defendant 3 - Counsel for the accuser claimed that in both of his interrogations, Defendant 3 chose not to cooperate with the police and even on simple questions that are not relevant to the commission of any offense, he remained silent. It was argued that this silence is puzzling mainly in view of the late response to the charge, which he gave in cooperation and in the same manner as Defendant 2, since if the drug version had been a true version, Defendant 3 would have told about it in his interrogation. In addition, it was claimed that his explanation in court, that he did not tell the police, could not stand, because he was located and interrogated only after the indictment was filed against defendants 1 and 2 between the offense of murder. Moreover, it was claimed that even when Defendant 3 had already answered a number of questions asked during his interrogation, he chose to lie or try to throw sand in the eyes of the police. For example, when asked what he did on the day of the murder at the Dor Alon Lakiya gas station, he replied, "I sat down," and when asked who he sat with, he chose to remain silent. Counsel for the accuser claimed with respect to the telephone number that was in the possession of defendant 3 at the time of the murder (058-7863841), that at first defendant 3 claimed that the device had been burned, later he remained silent, contrary to his testimony in court, from which it emerged that at that time he was in possession of a device that was his number as aforesaid.
The accuser's arguments regarding the incriminating accomplice's statements and his conversations with the informant - the accusing counsel claimed that the main evidence in the case was Muhammad's words in his conversations with the informant who was put in his cell in the detention center. It was argued that Muhammad's words during his conversations with the informant raise many characteristics relevant to proving the guilt of defendants 1 and 2 for the murder of the deceased. It was claimed that throughout all his conversations with the informant, the story of the "drug deal" was not mentioned in a single hint, from which it can be inferred that this is a false and suppressed version. It was further argued that a review of the prosecution's evidence P/30 and P/34 shows that during his police interrogations, the accomplice Muhammad repeatedly lied repeatedly in his initial interrogations, and later remained silent in his later interrogations. It was argued that this fact adds to the accuser's claim that this is not a person who can be exploited or put words in his mouth as he claimed in relation to the informant. Counsel for the accuser claimed that the transcript of the conversations clearly shows that Muhammad is aware of the existence of informants as an interrogation tool, and even claimed that he knows how to identify who the informant is. In this context, counsel for the accuser argued that from Muhammad's words we learn that in addition to not being deprived of his freedom of will, Muhammad is familiar with the interrogation tools of "informant" and claimed that he can identify him. It was also claimed, inter alia, that Muhammad and the informant had discussed the video documenting the murder (P/58) that had been circulated on the Internet, and that Muhammad's words revealed a figure that could not be clearly seen in the video, according to which the shooter was masked. Counsel for the accuser also referred to the description of the murder incident in front of the informant, as well as to the fact that at one point Muhammad mentioned Defendant 1 once more, saying, "My uncles come and locate me, I sleep with the person who was arrested with me, we already have them..." In this context, it was argued that this is another example of the friendly bond that has been created between the two. The accuser's counsel also referred to Muhammad's statements to the informant in which he said, "I ate it, I ate it," at the same point the informant testified that Muhammad cried after returning from the interrogation in which he realized that he was not documented on the cameras of the gas station in Lod at the time relevant to the murder, contrary to the alibi claim he claimed.