Detainee No. 2 Muhammad Assiwi: No" (transcript of 8 July 2019, 49:7-19, P/20A, p. 4, paras. 28-34) – my emphasis – A.H.).
Thus, in the aforementioned conversation, the informant goes on to ask Muhammad directly, whether Defendant 2 knows anything about the murder, whether he has seen it, so that he can say that Muhammad committed the murder, and Muhammad's answer is an unequivocal "no", i.e., according to Muhammad's words to the informant – Defendant 2 cannot testify that I am the murderer.
It should be emphasized that we are dealing with a dual question, i.e., a. does he not know anything?, b. he did not see? - And it is impossible to know exactly what question Muhammad meant when he answered "no." Indeed, it is more likely that Muhammad's intention was to answer the second question, did the defendant see him?, at the same time, there was no dispute between the parties that defendant 2 did not see the murder (since he was at the meeting point at the time of the murder) and therefore a negative answer to the question of whether he saw the murder does not raise or lower it.
However, there is a possibility that may be a little less likely, but not completely unlikely, that in his negative answer, Muhammad also answered the question of whether Defendant 2 knew anything about the murder, and such an answer that Defendant 2 "knows nothing" certainly has a meaning that may work in favor of Defendant 2.
For the sake of grammar and accuracy, I will note in parentheses (this is an important answer) that at the end of the question asked by the informant, the informant also added the question "the weapon was not on you", and it can be argued that there is a theoretical possibility to claim that the negative answer "no" was aimed only at this question. According to my understanding, theoretically it may be possible to make the claim, but in practice it seems that the negative answer was referring to the entire question "... He doesn't know anything, he didn't see anything, so that he can say that you murdered" [in any case, even an answer given only to the question that ends the sentence ("The weapon was not on you") will testify to the same conclusion (he doesn't know anything)], and all this because the question is short and formulated so that the questioner asks twice, "He doesn't know anything" while emphasizing the issue of knowledge, and it is less likely that the respondent will answer only the side question regarding the weapon without addressing the long question that is asked throughout the sentence. In addition, it should be said in this regard that this was a murder committed by firing a pistol (the informant claimed to have seen the video), so that the question "the weapon was not on you" does not refer to the shooting stage, but presumably refers to the stage after the shooting and not to the shooting stage, and it does not assume that the evidence of the murder was in the hands of defendant 2, but is ostensibly intended to ask whether after the shooting or before leaving the gas station, when he met defendant 2, the weapon was on him.