Moreover, even if there was room to accept the certain reservations raised by Albala in his testimony in court, according to which food can sometimes be purchased a little earlier through the back entrance, or an exceptionally early opening is possible at a quarter to eight or a little earlier, this is inconsistent with the defendant's version. As noted, the defendant claimed that a few minutes after 7:00 A.M., he and Odai sat down in the restaurant, which was bustling with life, and dined with other customers with whom they spoke. This description is far from even the most expansive description of Mr. Albella, which is possible, at most, to buy pita bread and hummus through the back entrance, or to wait a long time for the restaurant to open and enter between the first customers.
The result is that even the partial alibi version raised by the defendant, in relation to the morning hours only, is inconsistent with the testimony of the restaurant owner, a person who had no involvement in the incident and who did everything in his power not to harm the defendant's defense. Moreover, although according to the defendant, he and Odai met and spoke with many diners at the site, and even interacted with the car wash personnel, the defense did not summon a single witness from among all those potential witnesses, in order to support the defendant's claim on this central issue. The only defense witnesses who were brought were members of the defendant's immediate family, who gave suppressed versions that contradicted their statements to the police, as I will detail below. I will conclude this chapter by saying that not only was the defendant unable to establish the three core elements of his innocence - the transfer of the phone to Samer on Thursday, his holding in Samer's hands until Sunday evening, and the alibi's claims in relation to Friday, the day of the murder, but each of these elements was refuted by positive and unequivocal evidence, with all that this entails for the defendant's duty.