Thus in his testimony:
"Q. What did you talk about??
- About Mo"40 About the Parasha itself.
- What do you mean, go into more detail about what you said?
- If I manage to get things back, what do I get?, And what does the son get?, And how do we do it, and in what way did they tell me to replace it?"D. You don't need to know it, We will bring"D to make this whole deal. All the things surrounding the whole affair, Suppose it will be returned in some way..." (Peru' From the day 30.4.17 pp' 304 Shaw' 9-13).
The defendant confirms that this should have been a confidential deal, although he added that the lawyer knew about it, and it is clear from his own words that he understood very well that the negotiations being conducted with the intelligence personnel were about the return of the weapons and the status of an intelligence deal, as in his cross-examination:
"Q. I ask you again, What was discussed between you and the intelligence personnel?, Is it true that there was talk of an intelligence deal?, In other words, you will help restore hope"And no one knew about it except the intelligence people, Is it true or false?
- Some of it is correct. Except for the intelligence personnel, More 77"IV and another attorney, Bringing"4 And he also knew about it. 77"My D is out of the picture and they will give me in return for me being zero. This was their request and later we talked about it.
- Is it true that the reference was to an intelligence deal?, In other words, the only people who knew about it were the intelligence people and they were wrong"D. May you and the State Attorney's Office have?
- Yes, It was like that in the beginning. I don't know what to call it, if it's intelligence extradition, I hear it now.
- Is it true that what they offered you was that you would help bring Amal"8 And in return you shall not be punished, And no one knew about it except the intelligence, The State Attorney's Office"Your D?
- That's right. But they didn't"IV, The Representative."
(April 8, 2017, p. 339, question 24 - 340, question 5)