In relation to this witness, too, the defense claimed in the summaries that he came in order to serve the prosecution's thesis without any reference, and while ignoring documents that proved the opposite. It was argued that his words were also based on rumors, speculation and speculation, and when this was proven, he chose forgetfulness as a refuge. In contrast to his words, it was claimed that he was talking about a civil dispute that was conducted over the water, and it is not for nothing that his claims that he was threatened by the defendant were rejected; Evidence - His complaint that he was threatened as part of that meeting at his workplace was shelved.
Yosef Mandel, the nephew of Moshe Einhorn, Dalia Mandel's son, who stepped into her shoes as another heir, testified (December 7, 2023, pp. 3242 ff.) that in view of debts incurred on the property, his grandfather was forced to sell part of the property, although a full parcellation had not yet been carried out and building permits had not yet been received. His grandfather sold Plot 49 (formerly Plot No. 93) to the defendant, and then a deal was made with Nissim Abu Hassira, in relation to Plot 50, followed by David Shitrit and Hananya Piso, who together purchased certain meters of the property in Plot 48. Afterwards, the deceased purchased in trust, for Rafi Dahan, part of Plot 48, and the heirs were left with a plot of "dunams and something". The defendant was interested in purchasing the property, but with the exception of a certain usufruc interest in Plot 50, nothing was sold to him. The deceased was appointed receiver in order to settle the debts and "obtain the licenses". The director of the religious council (the witness's manager) was also interested in the purchase, and his son, Dvir Amar, was also involved. They delegated Dvir Amar's power because they believed that his father (who was also the mayor's brother) would be able to facilitate the legalization of the property, but it was explicitly agreed that Dvir Amar would not sell the property without their approval. Prior to his death, the deceased presented them with a document that allegedly showed that Dvir Amar had sold his share of the property to the defendant.