In our case, according to Adv. Meirovich, the theory presented by the accuser is not supported by sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. The prosecution did not attribute specific behavior to defendant 4, but rather claimed that the offenses were committed with defendant 1 together, without specifying what was the role of defendant 4. Indeed, Defendant 4 refrained from providing a detailed response to the indictment, but this was due to the severe conflict of interest with Defendant 1 in which he was subjected. Defendant 4 believed that if he deployed his line of defense in response to the indictment, he would "create for himself another front for the front that he had to deal with." Regarding his relationship with Defendant 1, it is claimed that he learned firsthand the price of his friendship with him, "He was brought down to a borrowed grief, his marriage was dissolved, he is in debt with a number of banks after Defendant 1 made use of his accounts and did not repay these debts, and he is facing a judgment for non-payment for laptops purchased from L.A. Company. Computer". However, it was claimed that the accuser's counsel was orally informed, at the very beginning, that defendant 4 was behind his statement to the police (P/388) regarding the involvement of Elhanan Tenenbaum.
Defendant 4 remained silent during his first interrogation, dated September 19, 2000 (P/334), even though it was not a complete silence, but he chose to answer several questions of the interrogators. From the beginning of the interrogation, he repeatedly demanded to consult with a lawyer, but the interrogators continued to ask him questions, without stopping the interrogation and respecting his right to counsel. Even if this defendant gave a version that matched the version of defendant 1, it was done on the legal advice of a previous defense attorney who represented him. This is the late Attorney Dan Kaval, who advised Defendant 4 to continue his silence during his detention, even though he had no hand or leg in the affair for which he was arrested. Since the defendant acted according to legal advice given to him, his silence or the initial version he gave should not be interpreted as his obligation. As stated, in October 2000, defendant 4, in the framework of his statement (P/388), gave details that were given to him by defendant 1, and for this he repents. In his testimony in court and in an oral conversation with the accuser's counsel, the defendant decided to reveal the truth, including the fact that defendant 1 sought to coordinate testimonies with him, and the matter should not stand in his way.