"A formal statement on behalf of the accuser regarding the decision made by the Director of the DIP... This is a decision of the District Attorney, which was made by the Director of the DIP. On the merits of the decision, in an attempt to trace the reasons that led to the adoption of the said decision, it emerged that the decision was made because the circumstances of the case as a whole, and the evidence collected in respect of the said charge with respect to defendant 1, led to the conclusion that it was possible not to proceed with criminal proceedings against him in this matter. At the basis of the decision, which followed a request by defendant 1's defense attorneys, evidentiary considerations were considered, inter alia, which stemmed from the evidentiary basis that the accuser had at that point in time... This distinction between the various parties involved is based on the pertinent considerations of the accuser. An examination of the facts of the indictment shows that the facts attributed to Eran Malka are different from those attributed to defendants 2-3, and the accuser reserves her right to elaborate on this in the hearing to be held tomorrow".
- In a hearing held the next day (March 22, 2018) Expanded Counsel for the accuser regarding Number of Differences According to her, the indictment is among the facts attributed in connection with the nightly meeting with the queen in comparison to the facts attributed there to David. On the other hand, when it comes to Fischer, the distinctions The Units Counsel for the accuser claimed in that hearing that Malka was not physically present at the meeting and that his involvement, according to the indictment, was expressed in the conversations he had on the phone during the meeting with the state's witness and Ruth David, while Fischer allowed the meeting to take place at his home, was present at the meeting, and did not prevent David, who served as his attorney in the investigation at the time, from carrying out the actions described in the indictment during the meeting.In his presence, she is his extension, he is the sender" (pp. 3310-3309).
It is not for nothing that these are the only distinctions between Malka and Fischer, the accusing Shin Bet detailed in that hearing. The indictment in the nightly meeting affair does not attribute any concrete statement to Fischer during the meeting, unlike Malka, about whom the indictment alleges that during the meeting he spoke on the phone: (a) with the state witness, who "shared with him her fear of the investigation and arrest that awaited her" and he "asked her to come to the meeting and take part in it"; (b) with Ruth David, who "firmly instructed him not to come to the meeting, for fear that he would be 'monitored and wiretapped,'" and added and "instructed him... In other words: 'Don't make any sharp movement, that's exactly what they want,' when she meant the DIP investigators." (c) In the same conversation, Malka further told David "that in the expected interrogation he intends to maintain his right to remain silent," and then "Defendant 3 informed him that Defendant 2 also intends to do so. Defendant 3 further stated to Defendant 1 that he should not worry about A. since she was 'taking care of it,' and that A. would be 'ready' for interrogation" (paragraphs 12-13 of the Facts Chapter of the 'Night Meeting' charge).