Defendant's Attorney's Reference to the Testimonies in Court - The defendant's counsel argued that the receipt of the digital media products given by the witness Yigal Singer should not be approved. With regard to the testimony of the investigator, Sgt. Eyal Saban, it was claimed, inter alia, that the witness confirmed that he did not conduct an actual examination to examine the alibi of Defendant 1.
Later in the summaries, it was noted, inter alia, that in the testimony of the investigator, Sgt. Eyal Zeitoun, the witness evaded answering a question regarding the PFO concerning the conversation in which the drinking bottle was discussed. In addition, it was claimed that in the course of his testimony, when the interrogator was asked about the type of vehicle from which the murderer drove off, he replied that the witnesses said it was a Mazda vehicle or something similar, but when his answer was hurled at him in a testimony he gave at Muhammad's trial, where he said that no witness had given any details about the type of vehicle, he replied that he did not remember.
It was also claimed in the summaries of the defendant's counsel that the testimony of Muhammad's father showed, inter alia, that the scar on his son's face was caused by an incision made to him by someone from the deceased's family. It was also claimed that according to the father, the deceased was stabbed in the back about two weeks before the murder, by a member of the Abu al-Qi'an family, and that he has a recording of a person from the deceased's family who told him that they knew it was not his family.
Later, the defendant's counsel also claimed that a report prepared by Elad Porat regarding the discovery of the burnt Mazda, which included documentation of weapon cartridges, did not know whether they were new or old.
It was argued that at his trial, the defendant testified that he had no connection with Muhammad to murder the deceased, and that he did not know about the dispute between Muhammad and the deceased, and that as far as he was concerned, the purpose of bringing the car the day before the murder was for the drug deal. He also claimed that while driving south from Lod during the day, he was sitting in the back, and at a certain point, after stopping at the gas station in Lakiya on the day of the murder, he was told to wait because they were going to get something, and dropped him off near Lakiya. The defendant then claimed that a man he did not know and Muhammad had picked him up and drove to Lod. It was also claimed that the defendant said that he was not with Muhammad in the car at the time of the murder. The defense argued in the summaries that in his cross-examination as well, Defendant 1 explained that Muhammad had told him that there was a drug deal, and that they would bring a car for that purpose, and that he had made a mistake when he agreed to go with Muhammad for the purpose of the drug deal. It was also claimed that according to the defendant, when he drove with defendants 2-3, he did not know that they would change cars, and he forgot his phone at home. The same happened when he went to Hura, he forgot the phone, and he claims that it happens to him a lot that he forgets the phone. It was noted that the defendant denied that the car had been set on fire.