Testimonies of the Negev Intelligence Unit
- I will refer to the above in relation to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses 33, 34, 35, I will add the following in a nutshell, and without elaboration in light of the fact that their testimony was heard in a hearing that was held behind closed doors.
It can be said that these are not "investigations" but meetings. It should be emphasized that the accuser does not seek to rely on what was said in those meetings.
The testimonies of the intelligence personnel before me were credible. Their versions fit into each other and the logic of the matter, and I trust their testimonies.
Their testimonies refute the defendant's claims of "promises," and negate the course of things that the defendant is trying to present.
The interrogators and intelligence personnel emphasized and explained the purpose of their meetings with the defendant, the difference between the negotiations that took place with him and negotiations with a state witness, the difference between their interrogation and the interrogation by police investigators from the Central Intelligence Unit who interrogated the defendant, and discussed the definition of a "state witness" and why, in their view, the definition does not apply in this case.
It was emphasized by them that the intention was to bring about the return of the weapons, and that this was the only thing that mattered to them, and that was the reason for the meetings. It was emphasized that their interest was not in the proceeding itself or in the investigation.
It was confirmed that the initiative was their own initiative, during their meetings with the defendant, but that it was a negotiation on the return of the weapons, even though it could have been accompanied by a reduction in punishment, if approval had been received from the appropriate parties.
It was emphasized that only the return of the weapons was in front of their eyes, and not the case itself, neither in relation to the defendant nor in relation to others.