The second was a conference call in which Azoulay connected Sommer to Ben-Zaken and was recorded in a wiretapping that was carried out to Ben-Zaken as part of another interrogation (Conversation 129, B/30). In a conversation that took place about three hours after the email sent to him by Casharo, Sommer was heard referring to the upcoming meeting and telling Ben-Zaken: "It was at the request of Fouad." This statement was explained by Sommer (who, as noted, has no interest whatsoever) as saying it was made on the basis of what was stated in the email written by Kasharo, and without him himself having any knowledge of Ben-Eliezer's involvement, since he spoke only with Azoulay.
This is how he answered Adv. Simchoni's questions:
Q: In the same conversation. So even when you said it then in the same conversation between me about that evening it was again based on what you saw in the email.
A: Right.
Q: I mean, from the email you assumed that it was at Fouad's request, because you personally didn't talk about it with Fouad, right?
A: Correct" (Prov. p. 158, s. 26).
It should be emphasized again that Sommer was present at the meeting with Ben-Eliezer, and there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of his statements, according to which Ben-Eliezer did not even talk to him about promoting the meeting with Shemen.
It therefore appears that even the aforementioned conversation cannot constitute an evidentiary basis for the prosecution's claim in the indictment that Ben-Eliezer was the one behind the organization of the meeting between Ben-Zaken and Noble Energy.
The fact that Ben-Zaken did not disavow Sommer's remarks about "Fouad's request" during the conversation, and even noted that "today he met with the minister," is far from conclusive evidence. First, Ben-Zaken's words cannot be seen as confirmation of Ben-Eliezer's active involvement only in light of the fact that he "met the minister"; Second, it is not impossible that Ben-Zaken "fitted" the logical connection that Sommer made between Azoulay's request and the minister's wishes, even if in practice this was not the case.
- The positive evidence presented, which was not concealed, most likely indicates a factual situation different from the one described in the indictment, according to which the meeting took place at Ben-Zaken's initiative, with Azoulay assisting him independently. When I said these words, I said that even if there is a certain probability that Ben-Eliezer contributed to the organization of the meeting, it remains on the level of "feeling", and it certainly cannot be said with the required level of certainty that it has been proved.
The defendant's knowledge of the circumstances that led to the meeting
- There is no dispute that the said meeting was attended on behalf of Shemen - Ben-Zaken, Vaknin, Leibowitz and Haim Schiff, and on behalf of Noble Energy - Sommer and Lawson Freeman; There is no dispute that the defendant did not participate in the meeting.
There is no dispute that the meeting was already scheduled for December 1, 2010, when the only evidence presented regarding the defendant's update is relevant to December 5, 2010 (call 952 Bat/30 of December 5, 2010):