The defendant was asked if he knew the deceased and answered: "I knew him in Kfar Mishna." According to him, only after he ran over the deceased did he realize who he had hurt. In his cross-examination, he confirmed that "yes, I knew him a long time ago." Later on, he even knew where he lived (p. 327). Similarly, "I had known him since school days" (p. 328). Similarly, in response to a court question, the defendant confirmed that at the time of the car-ramming he did not know the identity of the deceased, and only afterwards did he realize that it was the deceased whom he had met before in the washing: "A little later I understood... That I walked near the intersection, the neighborhood, and told my uncles I knew it there." (p. 329)
Evaluation of the defendant's version:
Let us preface by saying: The defendant's version is replete with contradictions, brilliance and doubts, and in its entirety left a negative impression. This is said both in relation to the issues that are at the heart of the dispute, as well as in relation to peripheral data. Not only did this version fail to crack the incriminating evidentiary basis that operates for the defendant's duty, in many respects, it even strengthened him. The defendant's explanations for his actions were far from convincing and stood in contradiction with objective evidence, and contrary to the tests of logic and common sense.
The defendant's version, in parts of it, was a developing version, one that was adapted in a "rough manner" to the evidence that was hurled at him, and already at this stage "we will hold the bull by the horn" and note that the defendant's version is not even consistent with the defense expert's version, but rather strengthens Jaudat's version and the rest of the prosecution's evidence.
Thus, and not in an exhaustive manner, the words were expressed:
The defendant testified that his intention after the encounter in the washing was to travel with his brother to bring things from the supermarket for a family event (and thus to justify the trip in the Dodge car). This version contradicts what he said in his first interrogation with the police, where he explained that his intention from the outset was to travel with his brother Karim to Yatir, "in order to sit in Yatir, to pass the time there, smoking regular cigarettes, we drove in a Dodge car, I drove and Karam sat next to me" (P/24, p. 5). Only in his second interrogation did the defendant first bring up the trip to the supermarket as an explanation for his driving the Dodge. The defendant had no explanation for this contradiction, except that he was charged with murder and he does not remember what he said at all (p. 338).