Udai was therefore interrogated on four different occasions, lengthy interrogations that enabled him to give everything he knew, with an emphasis on the alibi claim that he and the defendant shared in relation to the day of the murder, i.e., the trip to hummus and the joint stay in the family compound, but he repeatedly claimed that he did not remember anything about the events of that day. Indeed, even if with regard to the meeting with Samer on Thursday, it might have been possible to raise an argument regarding Samar's danger and his reluctance to incriminate him, in relation to the events on Friday, the day of the murder itself, there is no logical explanation for Udai's lies and his keeping quiet, and this is conduct that is directly contrary to his and the defendant's interest, insofar as there was a real allegation of their alibi. Attention will also be drawn to the fact that Udai not only kept silent, under the guise of memory impairments, but also blatantly lied when he claimed, for example, that he was not at all in Lod or in the vicinity on the day of the murder and his evasive descriptions of the activity they took in relation to Mitsubishi on the day of his arrest.
In his testimony in court, not surprisingly, his memory was sharpened, despite the two years that had passed, and he gave a detailed version of all the events. Some of his version has already been mentioned and analyzed above, in the chapter dealing with the Internet searches conducted on the 337 subscription shortly after the murder, and without going into detail I will suffice to mention the considerable discrepancies found on the aforementioned issue between the defendant's version and Udai's version. I will therefore review the details of his conquered version in relation to the other relevant events, according to the chronological sequence.
Regarding Thursday, 25 August 2022, 'Udai gave a simple and laconic version in his main testimony, according to which he arrived at the family compound in the evening, met the defendant and Samer there, and stayed overnight in the compound. Attention will be drawn to the fact that Udai did not testify at any stage that during that meeting the defendant gave Samer any kind of telephone, at the latter's request, and this fact leaves the defendant's claim that the phone was transferred to Samer without any backup. Moreover, during the cross-examination, it became clear that even with regard to the aforementioned laconic version, many contradictions were found between the defendant's version and Udai's. For example, Udai claimed that he did not remember when he arrived at the compound, but that it was in the hours of darkness, contrary to the defendant's statement that Udai arrived at around 16-17, i.e., in the light. In addition, Udai claimed that he arrived at the family compound without prior coordination, while the defendant claimed that Udai called to inform him of his expected arrival. In addition, Udai testified that when he arrived at the compound, Samer was already there, contrary to the defendant's version that Udai arrived first and Samer joined later. Contradictions were also found regarding the arrangements for the overnight stay that night [transcript of December 4, 2024, at pp. 209-212]. As the saying goes, God is in the details, and even a suppressed and adapted version does not hold water, when examined in detail in a thorough cross-examination.