Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 108

Second, even detached from the aforesaid difficulty with respect to the date on which the meeting described by Rosenthal took place, his testimony with regard to the procurement proceeding should be given limited weight, and it does not change the picture that emerged from the testimonies and documents from real time.  Rosenthal was a technical person of the project, who testified to his impression from a bird's eye, while it was evident from his testimony that he was not at all familiar with the procurement side and the procurement procedures.  Rosenthal testified that he did not work in procurement "absolutely not" (p. 6686, paras. 2-6); Because he did not know Kenitork at all – who was at the time a buyer and head of the procurement team atELTA – about whom he asked if he was even from Elta (p. 6686, paras. 7-10) in a manner that indicates his limited familiarity, if any, with the procurement side; Rosenthal testified that he did not know what the procurement from his side does when the project signs a single supplier, in his words, "I really don't [know]": "I have no idea at all about the procurement issue..." (p. 6686, paras. 28-32) and that he does not know at all how the procurement copes with high price demands for obsolete/used equipment (p. 6687, paras. 19, where he also raised speculations).  Even if we assume that the meeting he described took place prior to the issuance of the CBM – and we discussed above the difficulties in this context – and even if Rosenthal, who saw the servers packed and ready for delivery, was as impressed as he was and concluded that an order had already been issued and everything was closed, this does not change the clear overall picture that emerged from the evidence: as of June 1, 2010, an order had not yet been issued.  Despite the approval of the project to a single supplier, the procurement company sought to clarify other alternatives and to check the price that was offered by means of a request for quotations (which were coordinated), only later the details were closed with Wei (see also Oshri's testimony that the meeting of June 17, 2010 was held for the purpose of closing details and a price without which the window of opportunity for the transaction would have expired, p. 4589, paras. 20-26).  In the circumstances of the case, we should give clear preference to the testimony of Vered, the head of the project, from which it is clear that he was well acquainted with the interface between the project and the procurement, during which he explained well what was in the meeting at the AllTrade and the possibility of the procurement to act after the meeting in order to examine other possibilities and to produce the procurement team for this purpose, the testimony of Kniturk, the procurement person who issued the procurement team, and the rest of the testimonies as described above.  which integrate with the documents in real time.