Moreover, not only did the defendant's testimony in court not provide a convincing response to a long list of evidence, and not only was it a suppressed version and therefore unreliable in the circumstances, but with the help of a professional conspiracy investigation, the accuser was able to refute very significant claims in the defendant's new version of innocence, based on the claim that he gave the 685 subscription to his cousin Samer, in a meeting that took place at the family compound in Ramle on the evening of August 28, 2022. and received it back only on the night of Sunday, 28 August 2022. The defendant also gave for the first time an alibi version regarding the day of the murder, according to which in the morning he went to eat at the Khalil restaurant in Tzrifin, and later, at the time of the murder and in the hours preceding it, he was in the family compound. However, the evidence presented by the accuser refuted each and every one of these claims, and not only did not substantiate even initially any version of innocence, but the new fabrications and lies, which were made in an unsuccessful attempt to adapt themselves to the existing evidentiary framework, only strengthened the prosecution's evidence.
Thus, with regard to handing over the phone to Samer, the defendant described a meeting at his home on the evening of 25 August 2022, in which Samer and Odai took part, and part of the time Shaker also took part, and even gave the estimated timetables for these meetings. In practice, however, with the help of the locations and location findings of the 401 subscriber used, it can be determined with certainty that the defendant was not at all in the compound or in the vicinity of the city of Ramle during the relevant hours in our case, and therefore he did not meet Udai or Samer during those hours in the compound, and did not give any telephone to Samer. To complete the picture in this context, I will mention that Shaker testified on behalf of the defense and did not remember at all that he had met Sumer in the compound that evening, while Udai claimed that he had met him, but did not describe the transfer of a telephone, and moreover he contradicted the defendant's version of many details regarding the events of that evening. Therefore, even the defense witnesses who were brought to substantiate the defendant's suppressed version, and who themselves gave suppressed and unreliable versions, did not provide the goods in the present context.