Mr. Albala's aforementioned announcement paints an unequivocal picture, according to which the restaurant opens to the public only after 8:00 a.m., that until that time the restaurant is closed with bars, and it is not possible to enter it at all, and that it is not possible for customers to receive service there at 7:00 or even 7:30. His testimony in court was slightly less conclusive. The witness did not retract the details he provided, but he was flexible and refined them to some extent. He confirmed that the official opening time is 8:00 a.m., and that on Fridays and Saturdays they would start serving food at 8:00-8:30 a.m., but he had reservations, adding that if the food was ready, sometimes they would open earlier, for example, at 7:30 a.m. or a quarter to eight o'clock [transcript of February 19, 2025, at p. 282]. In addition, he noted that even when the restaurant is closed in the morning, there is sometimes a sale from the back entrance to the kitchen, for those who want to eat outside, but it is not possible to sit in the restaurant itself until the official opening [ibid., at pp. 283-284]. Later, he described the changing opening hours over the years, and when asked to comment on his statement that there had been no change during the five years, he replied that he was very frightened when he was asked to be questioned by the police, and since he was not asked about each year separately, he gave a general answer regarding the situation at that moment. When asked by the learned defense attorneys what happens if a client arrives on a certain day at 7:20 or 7:30, the witness replied, "There is a possibility that you will eat something - pita, a box" [ibid., at p. 291].
Here it should be noted that it was evident that the witness did not feel comfortable giving his testimony and was very afraid of the consequences of his testimony. It should be recalled that this is a restaurant owner, an ordinary citizen, who found himself, on his own initiative, giving testimony on matters that may seem trivial, but which have real implications for an investigation into a serious murder case against the background of an alleged dispute between rival families. In these circumstances, and after the questions asked revealed to him the nature and significance of the disputes, it is understandable to try to walk between the drops, to avoid contradicting his previous statements head-on, and yet to remain a certain flexibility regarding the possibility of purchasing food in a restaurant before 8:00 a.m. In light of these data, there is a clear preference for the details that the witness gave in his statement, details that were given without pressure, without him knowing the details of the affair and the importance of the testimony, and after consulting with his attorney, over his testimony in court. Therefore, the conclusion is necessary that, as the witness innocently answered when questioned by the interrogators, until 8:00 A.M., the restaurant is closed, and entry to it is not possible due to the iron bars installed around it. Therefore, the defendant and Odai could not sit in the restaurant and eat there for a few minutes after 7:00 a.m., as the defendant sought to convince in the suppressed alibi version that he raised in his testimony in court.