In cross-examination from that day, Saada referred to Malka's statement that at the time of signing the state's witness agreement, he had received promises that could not be documented in the agreement. According to Saada, Malka is "A Lying Liar"For there was no such event (21859, 21861). Similarly, with respect to Malka's claim that he was promised that the state would claim "Weak"Regarding his detention until the end of the proceedings, Sa'ada said that it was a lie (21861-21862, 21866-21867); Regarding the claim about Saada's promise to the Queen that the state would not object to his early release by a third and that such a benefit could not be written in the state's witness agreement, Saada said that "it is Lieand that he did not make such a promise to the queen (21873). He later explained that he may have said that he did not have the authority to guarantee such a thing. Regarding the law license, Saada clarified that the matter never came up - "Lawyer's license, this is something I don't remember ever having a dialogue with someone about in my professional life", and that there is no chance that the subject of the law license was in dispute (21881). Sa'ada summed up his remarks as follows:Nothing was promised beyond what was mentioned in the agreement... And I repeat it again and again, he lied in all these aspects, even regarding the law license, the weak-strong, even with the promise of a third... In all of them he was consistent... Uniformity that is a lie" (21879-21877).
Saada reiterated these words in the cross-examination of May 21, 2023, where he said that any benefit that Malka receives is part of the agreement and must be documented (23228), and that Adv. Bartal "In his feeling... He wanted to secure his client. In reality, he didn't get a promise... He knows we don't have the ability, he also knows that he didn't sign anything" (23277-23275). Regarding Malka's early release in a third, Sa'ada argued that the issue could not be included in the state's witness agreement at all because it was a matter that could not be promised and did not depend on the Department for the Investigation of Police, not on the prisoner's conduct (23327 onwards). Regarding his law license, Saada adhered to his claim that the issue never came up with him (23349-23348). He added that if Adv. Bartal's words regarding the promises were true, then he should have approached Uri Carmel, the director of the Department for the Investigation of Police, and claimed that he had been deceived and promised promises in the state's witness agreement, but they did not keep them. In practice, Adv. Bartal never raised claims of this kind (23312-23308; 23355). In addition, Adv. Bartal should have at least put the words in writing for himself in order to anchor the promises in his records, and this was also not done (23338).
- As I noted in the chapter dealing with the date of the state's witness agreement with Malka, the evidence shows that it is difficult to accept the statements heard by the Department for the Investigation of Police regarding the manner in which the state's witness agreement was drawn up with him. Later on, in the chapter that discusses the nightly meeting, I will show that Malka received another benefit that was not recorded. Therefore, and in light of Adv. Bartal's convincing testimony, there is a real possibility that in this case, too, Malka was promised favors that were not properly documented – at least in the matter of early release from prison – and as a result, additional harm was caused to the defense of the defendants and to the court's ability to assess the weight of Malka's words (especially since today the accuser also agrees that there is no weight, to a large extent in light of the failures and deficiencies in the manner in which the state's witness agreement was drawn up with him).
In any event, the result of this matter is that due to the failures described above in documenting the benefits promised to Malka, it was necessary to complete the investigation and subsequently hear additional witnesses, which extended the hearing of the case for another year and a half (see the words of the accuser's counsel in the hearing of September 1, 2022, p. 21289, of her intention to declare 'these witnesses' in mid-September 2022 upon the conclusion of Malka's supplementary cross-examination; in practice, Following the completion of the investigation and the addition of prosecution witnesses, the accuser's declaration was given only on February 14, 2024).