Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 28759-05-15 State of Israel v. Eran Malka - part 104

According to Adv. Perry, not only did the accuser's response to Fischer's preliminary arguments at the hearing on July 14, 2016 not present any satisfactory explanation for the distinction between him and the other participants in the night meeting who had not been prosecuted, but the justification given to this by the accuser's counsel at that hearing was that "a decision on the position or non-position of those involved in a particular criminal affair is a complex decision in which the prosecuting authorities consider and examine various considerations, including the ability to prove the charges against The episode...  In this matter, our decision revolves around evidentiary considerations" (p. 127).  Attorney Peri believes that this answer does not hold water for two reasons: First, the indictment itself states that the "participants in the meeting" – which was previously defined as a meeting with the participation of "inter alia, defendants 2, 3, A. and her counsel" – raised possible action scenarios for a situation in which the Department for the Investigation of Police succeeded in infiltrating mobile devices.  From the moment the accuser saw fit to attribute the words in the indictment to Fischer as to the other participants, and since there is no possibility of a situation in which the accuser raises a factual claim in an indictment that according to her opinion she has no evidence to prove it, she is not entitled to contradict herself and claim after the filing of the indictment that she has no evidence to prove this fact.  Second, the closure of the case against the other participants in the meeting, on the grounds of lack of guilt and not on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence, also silences the accuser from claiming that the other participants were not prosecuted due to evidentiary considerations.  and if with regard to these participants, the accuser's conclusion was that their guilt was not formed despite the evidence proving their presence at the meeting in which possible action scenarios were raised; In it, David, the congregation of the state, and Malka exchanged words that would disrupt the investigation – inevitably, the same conclusion applies to Fischer, who does not distinguish between him and the other participants.