Muhammad's limited answer, which did not give the obvious answer, but rather referred to two details that Defendant 2 was also familiar with according to his version, will make it difficult to reach the conclusion that in his reply Muhammad intended to tell the informant that Defendant 2 was involved in the details, knew where Muhammad came from, and therefore could tell that he was the murderer.
It should be emphasized that during his testimony in court, the informant confirmed that he understood from Muhammad that Defendant 2 did not see the murder:
"Q: But in the context of what happened on the day of the murder, he didn't know anything, that's what he's telling you? As you asked and he answered, true?........
A: He didn't, he told me that he hadn't actually seen him, that he had pulled the trigger.........." (April 4, 2021, p. 217, paras. 15-23)
It should be said in parentheses that in his testimony in court, the informant directly confirmed that according to Muhammad, defendant 2 did not see the murder ("He didn't, he answered me that he didn't actually see it, that he pulled the trigger" – and thus he answered the question, but later on the informant tried to explain, according to his understanding, Muhammad's answer to the informant, who answered "no", In his view, unlike a member of the Arab sector who knows what blood revenge is, it is not possible for a person from the Arab sector from a certain family to take a person from another family and be involved in a murder case without knowledge (P. of April 4, 2021, pp. 217, 21, 22, pp. 221, 8-15), (and therefore it is likely that defendant 2 was involved in the murder), but we are clearly dealing with things that are from the family of public information testimonies or from the family of opinions, This is not to be accepted, so we are left with only Muhammad's statement to the informant in his short "no." (It should be emphasized that later in his testimony, the informant was asked whether Muhammad had told him at the time of the dubbing that he had planned the murder with Defendant 2, and he ruled out this possibility (pp. 221, paras. 22-23).