Moreover, contrary to the provisions of the law and the Attorney General's directive, which require that any document relating to contacts with a candidate to be a state witness be included in the list of investigative material that is forwarded to the defense for review, let alone the document in question that officially opened the negotiations towards Malka's becoming a state witness, Saada did not ensure that the document was reflected in the investigation file; He considered himself exempt from transferring to the file a copy of the document or even a memorandum regarding the existence of the document and its contents; So much so that he found no difficulty in the scenario, which he conceived on his own, according to which Adv. Bartal would sign the document and then "He takes it for himself... Because I have no problem with him taking it, even if it's decent for me to take it and keep it, I trust Ofer" (22339; see similarity 23993). Even ignoring Adv. Bartal's testimony that he did not receive a copy of the document, which remained in the offices of the Department for the Investigation of Police, Saada's claim regarding the trust he had in Adv. Bartal (which, in parentheses, it should be noted that it is inconsistent with other things that Saada said later in his testimony about Adv. Bartal):Either he's negligent, but negligence is criminal, or he's a liar" - 23289), unable to explain the disregard for the rights of the other suspects who were interrogated at the time, including Fischer, whose obligation to document the contacts of a state witness agreement with Malka was intended to protect them as well and not only Malka (Criminal Appeal 1361/10 State of Israel v. Zagori, paragraph 34 (June 2, 2011); In another appeal (Tel Aviv District) 27406-09-17 Yifrach v. State of Israel, paragraph 2 (March 22, 2018)).
As a result of these omissions, the prosecution representatives who conducted the proceeding, including the attorneys of the Department for the Investigation of Police, were prevented from exposing the court, from the beginning of the process and for years, to the depth of the trial, regarding Malka's status and the agreements with him; The court found itself forced to direct the many hearings on this issue as a blind spot; and substantive decisions that could and should have been made in accordance with the correct state of affairs – including the decision of November 20, 2016 on the preliminary arguments and additional decisions in motions for protection from justice – were given in a different format than should have been given, in a manner that caused a massive extension and complexity of the proceeding and the discovery of the truth with great delay.
- The first conclusive evidence discovered during Sa'ada's cross-examination – and no trace of it was found in the investigation file – reached the Jerusalem District Attorney's Office on February 16, 2023, along with an email message from an attorney serving in the Department for the Investigation of Police (N192/2):
"1. On February 15, 2023, I asked the department's registrar, Ilan, to receive reporting forms on the results of the handling of the appeal, and while I was not in the room, Ilan placed a pile of forms on my desk.
- When I took a form from the pile, I saw that among the forms was a memo written by Moshe Saada.
- The date of writing the document and its content made me think that it was a memo related to the case in which police officer Eran Malka and others were interrogated, and therefore I forwarded the document to you".
On the same day (February 16, 2023), the Jerusalem Criminal District Attorney's Office was given the memorandum itself (N191/2). The memorandum bears the date of May 10, 2015, and is written in Saada's handwriting: