Go out and see: While one of the main purposes of the obligation to document plea bargains is to ensure the defendant's knowledge and intention regarding the details of the plea bargain, Malka's testimony showed that he was far from knowing that this was an arrangement between him and the Department for the Investigation of Police, let alone knowing the details of the plea bargain and the reasons that led to it (pp. 4578-4581, 4643, 4825-4826). Malka's defense attorney, Adv. Bartal, also did not know how to confirm that Malka's expulsion from the "night meeting" charge was done in accordance with his agreement (21798), and added that the state's witness agreement of June 4, 2015 did indeed grant Malka economic benefits, but not a benefit in the form of the erasure of offenses (21799).
- It is also the accuser's recent attempt to explain Malka's expulsion from the charge of the 'night meeting' – by means of an explanation based on a plea bargain Extra who supposedly entered into a contract with Malka after the state's witness agreement / plea bargain of June 4, 2015 and before the presentation of the amended indictment on June 10, 2015 - cannot stand. The prosecution therefore failed to justify Malka's removal from the charge, despite his active part (via telephone) in the conversation that took place during the meeting, while Fischer, who, unlike Malka, does not attribute any concrete statement or act to him at the meeting, remained accused of this charge for more than a decade, and was even perceived in the arrest proceedings as having (only) prima facie evidence against him that he disrupted proceedings close to his arrest. This result is unacceptable; stands in clear contradiction to the sense of justice and fairness; and can only be cured by refraining from imposing any real punishment on Fischer for the charge in question. This was due to the protection from justice established by the selective enforcement that the prosecution took against Fisher in comparison to the queen, and together with the inconsistency in the explanations given by the prosecution to distinguish between the two, which changed one after the other, and in the end there was not one of them left: not the explanation of Fischer's vicarious responsibility for David's actions; not an explanation for Fischer's presence at the meeting that took place at his home; not an explanation of the evidentiary considerations and the decision of the director of the Department for the Investigation of Police, which has not been found to date; And not the explanation that tells of a second plea bargain that was made with Malka.
Moreover, the selective enforcement of the nightly meeting affair is another indication of the improper conduct of the Department for the Investigation of Police and the fact that Malka received hidden rewards, especially when he and his lawyer did not know how to explain the meaning of the matter.