As can be seen, Udai sought to provide backing for the defendant's version of innocence, both in relation to the transfer of the 685 subscription to Samer and in relation to the alibi on the day of the murder. In practice, he has not been able to provide convincing support in these aspects. With regard to the meeting on Thursday, the witness was unable to provide any convincing explanation as to how he suddenly "remembered", two years later, that trivial meeting with the defendant and Samer in the family compound, a meeting in which no significant event took place, since he does not claim to have witnessed the phone being handed over to Samer and the conversation that accompanied it. This is especially striking in light of the fact that he could not describe anything about his actions and his whereabouts the day before. In addition, clear contradictions were found regarding all the details relating to the encounter, between Udai's testimony and the defendant's, such as the date of Udai's arrival at the compound, the prior coordination of the meeting, the date of Samer's arrival, and more.
Even with regard to Friday, the day of the murder, Udai's testimony does not help the defendant. This is, as stated, a suppressed testimony, for which there is no convincing explanation for its suppression. The witness's unwillingness to cooperate with the police is not convincing at all, since this is a version that, if it had really been in it, would have acquitted the defendant, and Udai himself, who was also in custody, without in the slightest entanglement of another person. Udai's claim that he was afraid of Samer and therefore did not report his involvement has nothing to do with the issue of Friday's alibi, and was made in vain, without any reference. The testimony regarding Sunday, regarding the handing over of the phone from Samer to the defendant, also contradicts the defendant's testimony, and does not include the elements of innocence that the defendant seeks to attribute to this. I will mention that Samer is no longer alive, after he was murdered during the course of the trial, and his involvement was first alleged, only after his murder, in the testimony of the defendant in the defense case.