In this context, the words of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 7007/15 Shmil v. Israel (September 5, 2018) are appropriate:
"When a person faces a charge of murder and struggles for his innocence, it is reasonable to assume that he should immediately flatten the version that has the power in his favor; The appellant, on the other hand, conceded his version that he had an alibi witness to the legal proceedings in his case. According to him, the reasons why he did not retract his false version and refrained from telling the matter in his interrogations as presented to the court, are rooted in his lack of trust in the police, as well as the advice he received from his attorney at the time and from the informants. However, the appellant's counsel was not brought to testify at the relevant time in order to confirm the appellant's claim in relation to him. In general, the weight of a suppressed version is small as long as a reasonable explanation is not given for its suppression, and the weight of a suppressed version presented only after the presentation of incriminating evidence is even less than that of a suppressed version presented before such evidence is presented (Criminal Appeal 10477/09 Mubarak v. State of Israel (April 10, 2013); Criminal Appeal 5730/96 Graziani v. State of Israel, para. 5(d) (May 18, 1998); see also Criminal Appeal 9385/10 Abu Tzaluk v. State of Israel, para. 17, December 27, 2011); And this is the appellant's version."
As in the aforementioned case, the defendant first raised his detailed version of the events, including the alibi claim, many months after the conclusion of the police investigation and the filing of the indictment, and after all the incriminating evidence collected was presented to him. Throughout his testimony in court, the defendant showed great proficiency in the investigative materials and the evidence presented on behalf of the accuser, and it was clear that he was trying to adapt his version to the objective evidence that was collected, which could not be challenged. As can be seen, the defendant did not present any convincing reason for his conduct and the complete lack of cooperation in the police investigation, and in the absence of a convincing explanation for suppressing the version, the weight of his current version is very low from the outset.