Sixth, in its summary, the prosecution referred to an email sent by Orit (a secretary at Manofim) to Azoulay, claiming that this email reflected a request for assistance in collecting entry visas to Israel for a delegation arriving from Azerbaijan. It appears from the correspondence that the entry visas have already been issued and the assistance is required only in relation to the place where they were collected [(P/269D (4)-(6)]. In the correspondence, Orit noted that: "I assume that he (the defendant – B.S.) has already talked to you about it." The prosecution argued that the correspondence proved that the defendant used his power and influence on Ben-Eliezer to promote matters related to the license, himself, through Azoulay (paragraph 112 of the prosecution's summaries).
The prosecution's argument is far from reflecting what has been proven or what can be learned from this correspondence.
Here are my reasons:
(a) This correspondence was available to the prosecution at the interrogation stage, but nevertheless – it chose not to include any reference to it in the indictment, and this, presumably, for the reason that it did not believe that the correspondence had any connection to the drilling license or that it could be proven that the defendant was behind it; (b) Even if it can be assumed that the delegation is connected to the CDC, no in-depth inquiry has been conducted as to the nature of the delegation and its connection to the drilling license; (c) It has not been proven that the defendant took any action in the matter (for example, he spoke with Azoulay); (d) The full correspondence that was exchanged between Orit and Azoulay was accompanied by letters drawn up by Vaknin, which was not questioned at all by the prosecution representative, and neither Orit nor Azoulay were asked about the matter when they testified in court.
On the basis of the above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution's claim that the correspondence "proves that the defendant used his power and influence on Ben-Eliezer in promoting matters related to the license, himself, through Azoulay" is so weak that it should have been avoided, certainly after the prosecution decided not to include any reference to that correspondence in the indictment, and to refrain from cross-examining three relevant witnesses. And if I said these things, I said that there is no room to conclude from that correspondence about the defendant's involvement or knowledge of the "Ben-Eliezer-Mimran" conversation.