Indeed, in the framework of the civil law that was conducted against him, defendant 4 was represented by an attorney, who was referred to him by defendant 1, and this raises questions. However, these questions can be explained against the background of the close relationship that Defendant 4 had with Defendant 1, and only in retrospect did it become clear to Avi Kalmaro that he was on the exploited side.
With regard to the testimony of Adv. Borman, who represented Defendant 4 in the civil proceeding, it became clear that her testimony was tendentious and that Defendant 1 even contacted her prior to giving her testimony. The manner in which she gave her testimony in court shows that her only desire is to assist Defendant 1 and to distance him, as far as possible, from his deep involvement in the transaction that is the subject of the second indictment. Therefore, no confidence should be placed in the testimony of the witness in this context.
Therefore, the defense seeks to acquit defendant 4 of the second charge.
Legal issues common to all or most of the charges
Circumstantial evidence
- Some of the facts alleged by the prosecution are based on circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct evidence to prove them. Therefore, it is appropriate to devote a few words to the subject of circumstantial evidence.
As determined inCriminal Appeal 6096/94 Mansour v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(3) 732, 736:
"Circumstantial evidence is examined according to logical principles that embody life experience and common sense... In this regard, the rule is that if the possibility of deducing from the totality of the evidence the existence of facts in which the defendant is not guilty is an imaginary possibility, whereas the only logical conclusion that is required from the totality of the evidence, given its weight, is the existence of facts in which the defendant is guilty, then the defendant must be convicted. In such a situation, there is no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.