During the hearing, the plaintiff, Adv. Shaul Zion, argued, as stated, that what was said in this matter by the defense attorney is not true, (P. of July 18, 2023, p. 341, para. 5), and in the circumstances of the case, when these are not agreed facts, and are not facts that have been proven as required, it will not be possible to give any weight to what was said by the defense attorney, regarding things that were said by the prosecution to Mohammed. It should be emphasized that Muhammad himself confirmed the statements of the defendants' counsel on the matter, but his testimony was found to be completely unreliable, after it was contradicted many times by other evidence.
In light of all this, the defense's arguments regarding the manner in which the prosecution conducted itself in the above matter should be rejected.
Failures in activating the informant
During the course of the investigation, two informants were brought into Mohammed's cell, the first informant Mr. Bilal Rayan ("the informant") and the second informant, Mr. Nissim Machluf (hereinafter: "the second informant").
During his oral summaries, counsel for defendant 1, Adv. Simon, argued that Muhammad's confession to the murder was made only to the informant, and that there was no confession on his part afterwards, and according to him, Muhammad's confession to the informant does not appear to be a "tenth" of the confession that Roman Zadorov confessed to the informant in his case. According to him, after the District Court ruled in his case, due to all the problems that arose in the confession to the informant (in the Zadorov case), that this was not evidence that could lead to a conviction and the state did not appeal it, (even though the Supreme Court allegedly said that "the confession ... before the informant, it is beyond a reasonable doubt"), and the court will no longer be able to accept the informant as a proper procedure that can be used to bring about the conviction of a defendant.
An examination of the defense attorney's statements shows that in his remarks, the defense attorney did not present any parallel details between our case and the matter discussed in the "Zadorov" case, (Serious Crimes Case 520/07 State of Israel v. Roman Zadorov), beyond the fact that in the "Zadorov" case as well, an informant was used, (such as identical facts in the conversation with the informant, similar external evidence, the issue of prior acquaintance with the deceased, and grounds for murder, etc.), and in these circumstances it will not be possible to relate to the defense attorney's argument in a substantive manner.