In summary, the defense argues that Alon Granot's statements regarding the fraudulent methods of defendant 1, or the commission of similar acts, are nothing more than "a pile of legends mixed with a complete lack of understanding of the umbrella, seasoned with motives of revenge and clear interests to harm Uri Resh and with a tailwind on the part of the prosecution."
Another issue, which was discussed in the introduction, relates to the recording of the conversation between Defendant 2, Yehoshua Shlosh, and Defendant 3, Araldo Parisi (S/124). This recording was not included in the interrogation material and did not come up during the cross-examination of Defendant 1, nor even during the cross-examination of Defendant 2. This is despite the fact that the recording was long ago in the hands of defendant 3's defense attorneys. According to the defense, this fact already severely impairs the weight that can be attributed to this recording, since its failure to present it at the time gives a procedural and unfair advantage to defendant 3. In addition, it was argued in the summaries of defendant 1, the unexplained delay raises a real concern that the time was used for various edits and "cooking" in the recording. It was further argued that this recording has no evidentiary value, since it does not meet the conditions of technical admissibility, and even if it does meet them, the same defects found in it are sufficient to reduce the evidentiary weight and to impair it. There is no doubt that defendant 3, Araldo Friese, has a significant interest in making the remarks, and therefore he should not be seen as an objective factor, and certainly not a man of authority.
With regard to the conversation between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, Yehoshua Shlosh claimed that it was an edited and "cooked" recording, and this strengthens the concern that Frieszi's intention was to incriminate him (Shlosh) and Resh, in order to absolve himself of responsibility. Therefore, the defense argued, the recording of defendant 2 by defendant 3 is inadmissible, or at least of negligible weight, for the purpose of proving the prosecution's arguments with respect to charges 1 and 2.