However, even this alibi claim raises difficulties. First, the details of the flash telephone calls in the respondent's apartment indicate that a call was made from his apartment to his friend's house at 21:34. Had the respondent left the camper's home between 21:15 and 21:30, and from there drove to the house of the pension owner to pay the rent, he would not have been able to get home until 9:34 p.m. In addition, from the details of the cell phone calls that the respondent claimed to have had, it appears that the telephone conversation between him and the owner of the pension on the day of the incident, in which he called to find out whether the latter was at his home, took place at 20:21, ostensibly while he was still at the camper's home. In addition, in the evidence file in the trial court there is a bank confirmation, according to which on the relevant day at 20:34 a cash withdrawal was made at the ATM from the respondent's father's account – a withdrawal that the respondent claimed to have made. Against the background of the above, it is therefore not surprising that his version The Final The respondent's – as claimed in the trial court – was that he had stayed at the camper's home until the date of the conversation (approximately), and in his words in his testimony in the trial court "until approximately 8:00 P.M." (transcript, p. 82), and not until 9:30 P.M. Needless to say, this version is very close to the first alibi argument raised by the respondent, which he also adhered to in the reply to the indictment, according to which he stayed at the camper's home until 7:30 p.m.
In short, over time, the respondent's alibi claim underwent some upheavals. Initially, he claimed that he stayed at the camper's home until 7:30 P.M., according to a report he filled out for Perach. Afterwards, it was recalled that contrary to what was stated in the report, the double meeting that took place at the camper's home was between 17:30 and 21:30, and that at the end of it he went to the house of the pension owner to pay his father's rent. As stated, his final version is that the double meeting at the camper's home ended around 8:00 p.m., after which he called the owner of the pension and drove to him to pay the rent. According to the latest version, not only did the double meeting at the camper's house not take place during the hours reported by the respondent in the Perach report, but it did not even last four hours, but only about two and a half hours. After all, the call to the camper's home left the respondent's apartment at 17:23, and it can be assumed that even if the respondent left for the camper's home immediately after the conversation, he reached him about 15 minutes later, i.e., at about 17:40.