First, the prosecution's position completely ignores the weight of the "Ben-Zaken-Azoulay" axis, and the very reasonable possibility that just as Azoulay and Ben-Zaken acted independently vis-à-vis the Petroleum Council or Noble Energy (as I determined above), so they acted in the context of the telephone conversation that Ben-Eliezer had that was made at the request of Ben-Zaken, or Azoulay or both, without the defendant being aware of it in real time or retrospectively. In my opinion, the proven existence of the said independent and powerful "internal axis", with its unique characteristics and willingness to carry out improper actions, is sufficient to lead to the rejection of the "circumstantial conclusion" presented by the prosecution.
It is within the framework of basic concepts that: "Only if the incriminating conclusion drawn from the circumstantial evidence clearly and decisively prevails over any other alternative factual thesis, then it can be said that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn in the circumstances of the case, and the possibility of the existence of another possible conclusion that is not distant and imaginary is sufficient to establish a reasonable doubt that it is sufficient to acquit a defendant" [Criminal Appeal 6167/99 Ben Shlosh v. State of Israel, IsrSC 57(6) 577].
The case law further determined that the process of drawing an incriminating conclusion from the circumstantial evidence is three-stage: in the first stage, each circumstantial evidence is examined on its own in order to determine whether a factual finding can be based on it; in the second stage, the entire body of evidence is examined in order to determine whether it allegedly involves the defendant in the commission of the offense. The incriminating conclusion is the result of an informed evaluation of the evidence, based on life experience and common sense; In the third stage, the burden is shifted to the defendant to provide an explanation that may negate the incriminating assumption against him. An alternative explanation for the circumstantial evidence system, which may leave reasonable doubt as to the defendant's incriminating presumption, is sufficient to acquit him [Criminal Appeal 497/92 Nahum (Kennedy) v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (October 24, 1995)].