In any event, if it had followed this explanation, the Department for the Investigation of Police would have been expected to present the facts to the court in the first place, and not to hide for years the orders it had issued, but did not implement, against Malka.
- Later, in April 2023 (about three years after Scherzer's interrogation in court), the prosecution transferred to the defense a paraphrase from an internal record held at the Tax and Economics Attorney's Office about a meeting held there on May 19, 2015, in which "It is said that two people are not touched on purpose: Eran Malka and Buchan [One of the prosecution's witnesses in the Eleventh Charge, known as the Buchan Affair']..." (N197/2). Although the meeting was held at the Tax and Economics Attorney's Office, the Department for the Investigation of Police was a partner in the software, as Saada confirmed in his cross-examination (pp. 22669-22665). This is an incident that took place only five days after the indictment was filed, in which it was made clear, in Rachel, your little daughter, that the avoidance of economic assault proceedings against Malka was a deliberate move. Nevertheless, in the hearing on March 19, 2017, a representative of the Department for the Investigation of Police claimed – in complete contradiction to the information that the department had from day one – that he had no way of knowing whether an economic assault had been carried out against Malka prior to the filing of the indictment.
It should be noted that this is another good example of how the Department's interfaces with other elements in the State Attorney's Office led to the revelation of the truth in this trial. This will be further illustrated later.
- It should be emphasized that the importance of this point is not in the discrimination between Malka and Fischer, but rather in the significant indication of the improper manner in which the state's witness agreement was made with Malka and the date on which the agreement on his being a state witness was formulated, prior to the filing of the indictment. In addition, this is another indication that the defense and the court are hiding from the eyes of the defense and the court what compensation Malka received even before the indictment was filed against him.
- Still, the power and status of the presumption of administrative correctness are not trivial; And if it were only the two perplexities mentioned, it is possible that it would still be possible to move on to the agenda and exempt the matter from the mistake or lack of professionalism of the Department for the Investigation of Police. Not only that, but a number of sharp and clear statements made along the way by the Department for the Investigation of Police on the question of the timing of the agreements with Malka, increased the tendency to believe the words and bend the question marks before them, even though they did not cease to bother the deceased and to preoccupy the defense with its attempt to reveal the true course of events in relation to this.
Thus, on May 26, 2015, Fischer filed a request to review the investigative materials, including all of Malka's statements, claiming that he had learned from media reports that Malka had done with the prosecution "Agreement Towards a Plea Bargain", and that for this reason the prosecution refrained from making Malka's statements available to the other defendants (In another appeal 49707-05-15). In the hearing of the motion that took place on June 1, 2015 (N. 102/2(a)), Fischer's counsel added that the Department for the Investigation of Police had agreed in advance with Malka that after the indictment was filed, he would give a clean testimony in order to examine reaching an agreement with him as a state witness, and that only the implementation of the agreement was postponed after the filing of the indictment in order to create the appearance of the prosecution's compliance with the rules set a short time earlier by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto (High Court of Justice 6410/14 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. State Attorney (February 4, 2015)). In response to this (and similar arguments raised by David's counsel at the hearing), the plaintiff said: "After the indictment is filed, we are examining the possibility of signing a state witness agreement with defendant 1... The negotiations began after the indictment was filed... The examination of the possibility of negotiations and conduct in the matter between Defendant 1 and prosecutors under various laws began after the filing of the indictment" (pp. 4-5). This statement of the prosecution was brought by the court (Justice K. Mossek) in a decision it gave the next day (June 2, 2015, paragraph 35, N102/2(b)), in which it accepted the prosecution's position and allowed it to refrain from transferring to the defense those parts of Malka's statements regarding which she filed a request for an extension of the time for the issuance of a certificate of privilege. Two days later, on June 4, 2015, a state witness agreement was signed between the Department for the Investigation of Police and Malka.