Q: Did you turn to Fouad, may his memory be blessed, to promote you to a meeting with Noble Energy?
A: Well, that's really absurd, why should I contact Fouad, I'm also arranging a meeting for Fouad with a surveyor and I'll turn to him for this thing? Why do I need it at all?" (Prov. p. 1202, s. 1).
See also:
"If I wanted Noble Energy as my partner or something, believe me, I know better than Jackie or someone to turn to Noble Energy or someone in the field of that thing" (Prov. p. 1203, s. 7).
Thus, the defendant noted in his testimony the illogic of the prosecution's claim, and noted that insofar as he was interested in promoting a meeting with Noble Energy, he could have done so very easily, and he did not need any assistance from Ben-Eliezer, Ben-Zaken or anyone else.
It should be emphasized that despite the fact that the version regarding his lack of involvement or knowledge of the circumstances of the meeting with Noble Energy was already given in his main interrogation in court, the prosecution chose not to cross-examine the defendant on these points, and I do not see any reason why the evidentiary rule should not be applied, according to which refraining from cross-examination of a witness (and even more so – the accused) at a material point may act in accordance with the obligation of the party that refrains from cross-examining the witness.
The scholar Vaki discussed the evidentiary significance of the lack of investigation as follows:
"As a rule, refraining from cross-examination of a witness will be considered agreement with the witness's version on that matter. However, the court is not obligated to accept the witness's version as true, and the weight of the testimony will be examined in accordance with the totality of the evidence in the case and the considerations in assessing the weight. Therefore, the absence of cross-examination, despite the possibility of conducting it, is one of the considerations that support the version presented (as given in a testimony or in a statement given to the police) in the conflict between it and the evidence that was brought to contradict it. This rule applies in civil and criminal law, and this is true both with regard to prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as with respect to litigants and defendants, whose case will be discussed below".