I will not suffice with these general conclusions, and I will dive into the deep waters of the suppressed version, for in his testimony in court, the defendant gave for the first time a positive version that can be examined in relation to his actions on the day of the murder and the days surrounding it, as well as in relation to the fate of subscriber 685 on the day of the murder, 26 August 2022, when he served as the person who was in the Mitsubishi throughout the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, we will now delve deeper and draw our attention to the core of the current version of innocence raised by the defendant in his testimony in court. This core included the allegations that the phone was handed over to Samer on Thursday, that he received it only on Sunday evening, so that the defendant did not subscribe for the entire weekend, as well as the alibi claim on Friday, the day of the murder, including the joint trip with Udai to the Khalil restaurant. We will examine each of these factual elements, against the evidence presented.
25.8.22 - Meeting with Udai and Samer and handing over 685 subscription to Samer
As stated, the defendant first told in his suppressed testimony in court about the existence of a meeting between him and Samer, in the presence of Udai and in the partial presence of Shaker, on the evening of 25 August 2022, at the family compound in Ramle, during which Samer asked the defendant for a telephone and the defendant handed him the A32 with a 685 subscription. According to the defendant, Udai's visit to him was planned in advance, and during that day he called the 401 subscriber, later arrived at the family compound around 16:00-17:00, and met the defendant there. Later, around 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., Samer also arrived at the scene.
However, this version must be rejected not only because it is a suppressed version and not only because of the sweeping lack of trust in the defendant's testimony in light of his conduct, his lies and the contradictions that were found in his statements in the face of the evidence gathered in the context of others, but also and mainly because his version of events in relation to the core of the events is contradicted head-on by objective evidence that leaves no room for doubt. I am referring here first and foremost to the location of the 401 subscriber, which according to the defendant is always with him and does not serve any other person.