Netanyahu trial: The next hearing will take place on December 6; The prime minister will be required to answer charges


The prosecutor’s office submitted to the court today (Sunday) its answer to the claims of the defense attorneys of Shaul Alovich, the defendant in the 4000 case. As you may recall, at the last hearing last week, defense attorneys claimed that the prosecutor’s office deliberately blackened parts of the transcripts. And built in order to influence the identity of the representation of in order for him to agree to sign a state witness agreement.

There were clear things on the recording that allegedly indicated the forbidden pressure. Advocate Iris Elovich Advocate Michal Ozer Rosen cited as an example the police interrogation of Elovich’s son, Or, during which the investigator pressured him to persuade his father to replace his lawyer, Jacques Chen. Three dots were added, and one page of the transcript disappeared.

The second hearing in the Netanyahu trial in the Jerusalem district has begun // Photo: Yoni Rickner

The defense argued that this was not an accidental but intentional mistake and that the Attorney General had examined their claims and said that things were not dawn and now he was saying that things were not true. Therefore they cannot believe the talk and must check all the tens of thousands of hours of recording.

Following this, the head of the panel, Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, visited the prosecution and asked for an answer within 10 days: “I think what the lawyers are saying is that maybe this is an indication that there are other transcripts that lack significant things. Someone chose to make three points and not transcribe to the end. “I will not go into the reasons of why. The question is whether they should sit and listen to all the recordings from the beginning?”

In the prosecution’s response, the allegations are rejected and it is explained that there was no attempt to hide anything. “There is no basis for the defendants’ allegations regarding the concealment of investigative materials from them or a deliberate action intended to prevent them from reviewing the materials,” the response said, while the prosecution completely ignores the discrepancies between the transcript made by the recording.

“On the contrary – their allegations indicate that all the investigation materials were provided for their review, since only in this way could they find discrepancies between the documentation and the transcript … It is clear that this conduct is inconsistent with the defendant’s allegations of concealment.”

The next hearing will be held on December 6: Netanyahu will be required to attend

At the same time, the court ruled that the next hearing in Netanyahu’s trial will take place on December 6, in which we will discuss the parties’ preliminary arguments and their answers to the indictment. Netanyahu will be required to appear for this discussion. The previous hearing was determined by the head of the panel, Judge Rivka Friedman Feldman. By September 13, all the investigation materials will be received from the State Attorney’s Office and the requests to remove the confidentiality. Prior to the change today, it was determined that by October 18, a response to the indictment will be received and by November 1, the state will respond to the preliminary allegations. The judge also estimated that the evidence phase will begin in early 2021.

“The transcript was edited by an outside company”

The prosecution stated that the transcript work was handed over to an external body that provides transcription services to the investigating units: “Indeed, a review of the transcript submitted for the defendants’ review shows that it is missing in several places compared to the audio documentation of the conversation … many times, and not only in this case. The audio documentation and the transcripts are due to the difficulty of hearing things or understanding the discourse between the researcher and the interrogee (transcribers often do not know the subject being interrogated, the interlocutors often go into each other’s words and so on) “.

The answer also directly relates to the claim that there was an attempt to influence the defense attorney’s name, since Elovich’s lawyer strongly opposed the signing of a state witness agreement: “Documenting the conversation between Or Elovich (son of Shaul YA) and the investigator shows that the son initiated And raised before the investigator the concern regarding the representation of his father by Adv. Chen and that in the investigator’s words there was no instruction to Or Elowitz regarding the relationship between defendant 2 (Shaul Elowitz 11) and his lawyer. ”

It was further written by the paralytics that “wherever there is a discrepancy between what is stated in the documentation and the transcript, or when the transcript is missing, the source on which it must be based is the documentation itself.” However, these are tens of thousands of hours of interrogation that the defense, due to the mistakes that have already been found, must transcribe, which requires a lot of resources and time on which the main request of them to postpone the evidentiary stage is based.

Later in the State Attorney’s Office, they express astonishment at the very reference when they write “Arguments of Defendant 3 (Iris Elowitz Y.A.) regarding the deliberate concealment of surprising investigative materials Naod, to say the least, in the face of the open and ongoing dialogue between prosecutors and their attorneys … Defendants 2-3 (Shaul and Iris Elowitz 11) chose, for their own reasons, to present their arguments in the way they were presented, when just a few days before the hearing they had long and matter-of-fact conversations with representatives of the investigative materials in the case. “

Elovich in court // Archive photo: Oren Ben Hakon

“I have to lie to be a state witness”

Last week, the evidentiary stage of the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Yiftach was determined in January 2021. At the opening of the hearing, Adv. Michal Ozer, Shaul Elowitz’s attorney, mentioned that an unrecorded meeting was held between Elowitz and his son Or, when the purpose was to purchase The defendant’s trust.

The same meeting was held in the consultation room where the son tried to persuade his father to be a state witness. According to her, “the first things Or Elowitz says to his father come to interfere with Shaul Elowitz’s representation of his lawyer.”

Defense counsel later unveiled a memorandum documenting a meeting between police investigator and Ben on the day of the interrogation as she “takes him out into the yard for a round,” but there is no mention of the content of the conversation between them. The only thing they know, she says, is that the call was recorded and said to have been marked. When the team contacted the prosecutor’s office, Adv. Ozer said, they received a transcript that had nothing to do with the memory of the things. The prosecutor added that “Elowitz told his son: ‘I have to lie to be a state witness.’ Since then a great outcry has arisen and even the chairman of the Bar Association has said that it is unacceptable for the police to intervene in the matter illegally by the state.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here