I find it difficult to accept the assumption underlying the defense's arguments that Ben-Eliezer's unique and unusual status was not a consideration in the eyes of the defendant, when he pondered the question of who would be able to support his version, and later on when he raised his name as a potential witness who could support his claims. When it came to a legal proceeding being conducted in an Israeli court, the preference for Ben-Eliezer's testimony over other potential testimonies, as far as the defendant was concerned, was expected, and not to say – it was obvious.
As an example that can illustrate the mindset regarding the significance of this or that testimony, we can refer to the email that Adv. Sharon wrote to the Jerusalem tax assessor, on August 22, 2012, as part of the tax proceedings, where he noted the following:
"It should be noted that this type of case is the type of case that is outside the laboratory conditions of the Tax Authority's management before a flesh-and-blood judge will arouse a lot of sympathy and therefore his chances of acquittal are good" (N/22).
Thus, the trial was expected to take place in Israel, before a "flesh and blood" judge (as defined by Adv. Sharon), so it is impossible to accept the argument that the consideration of "the aura that surrounds Ben-Eliezer" did not seep into the considerations that ultimately led to his testimony. And if these words are appropriate in relation to the considerations of all the parties concerned, they are certainly appropriate in relation to the defendant's mindset from the stage of forming the initial awareness regarding the possibility that he will be required to prove his claims by means of evidence and testimonies.
Was the transfer of the money brought to the attention of counsel for the defendant in the tax appeal?
- In his testimony in court, the defendant emphasized that he had reported the transfer of the money to his attorneys in the tax proceeding.
This is the defendant's definitive description: