(b) The court did not cast doubt on the statement made on behalf of the Department for the Investigation of Police in the hearing of June 1, 2015, according to which negotiations with Malka to examine the possibility of reaching a state-witness agreement began after the indictment was filed, and relied on the statement in the framework of the decision of June 2, 2015, in Fischer's request to review the investigative materials.
(c) This issue arose again in the hearing on July 14, 2016, in the defendants' preliminary arguments. In this hearing, the prosecution continued to adhere to the version of the Department for the Investigation of Police that negotiations with Malka began after the indictment was filed, and until then..."There was no agreement... Neither an agreement nor an agreement". This statement was brought in the framework of the decision in the preliminary arguments of November 20, 2016 (paragraph 92), in which Fischer's request to prevent the accuser from using Malka's statements was rejected, without it even being assumed that on the first day of Malka's cooperation with the investigators, a written and signed agreement between his lawyer and Saada preventing the use of his statements was in effect.
(d) Returning to the hearing on June 1, 2015, in the same hearing, the Department for the Investigation of Police accepted another position, that the reason for not transferring the messages collected from the Kingdom after the indictment was filed to the defense was the desire not to harm the investigation that began after the indictment was filed with the new matters that were not included in the original indictment. Judge Mossek adopted this in a decision he gave the next day (June 2, 2015), in which he allowed the prosecution not to forward Malka's aforesaid statements to the defense until a decision is made in the main case on the request to extend the deadline for the issuance of confidentiality certificates. In the hearing in the main case on June 10, 2015, the plaintiff reiterated her remarks, while asking to recognize theTemporary Confidentiality" on the materials until the completion of the supplementary investigation (pp. 5-6). I, too, relied on this, and ordered a temporary extension of the deadline until June 18, 2015 (paragraph 1 of the decision on page 7 of the transcript). In retrospect, it turned out that while the Department for the Investigation of Police sought to prevent the defense from continuing to review the statements collected from Malka after the indictment was filed, parts of the first and 'formative' statement that was taken from him on May 19, 2015, five days after the filing of the indictment, in which he reviewed all the new issues he was about to talk about, were quoted on May 22, 2015, in the television program 'Diary' that was broadcast on Channel 1 (see the prosecution's statement at pp. 14180-14178). An appeal filed by Fischer on August 24, 2021 to the Appeals Department of the State Attorney's Office against the decision of February 12, 2020 not to open a criminal investigation into the leak of Malka's said investigation by officials in the Department for the Investigation of Police has not been decided to this day (N. 203/2).