Wei and Oshri further claimed that in other matters - for example, in connection with the offense of tampering due to the deletion of emails - the accuser did not believe Shahar about Oshri's part and involvement. However, the factual basis in this context was not fully laid out before the court, a matter that affects the weight of the matter, and in any event, this does not change the aforesaid with respect to the impression of Shachar's testimony (with regard to the arguments on the basis of the affair referred to as the Mamab affair, see the discussion of the ELA transaction below and the defense's arguments in the fifteenth indictment).
In summary, Shahar's testimony raised discrepancies. More than once the testimony was incoherent. The testimony gave the clear impression that Shahar was in opposition to the accuser and was trying to adapt his answers to the interests of the defendants in general and Oshri in particular. This, too, justifies giving high weight to statements and those parts of his testimony that are contrary to the interest, and taking into account the overall evidentiary picture.
- Naveh - Naveh was convicted after a plea bargain was reached with him and after he pleaded guilty to an amended indictment. Subsequently, Naveh testified at the trial as a witness on behalf of the accuser.
Naveh's testimony sometimes raised questions and perplexities. He was interrogated more than once in a manner that was close to the interrogation of a hostile witness (e.g., p. 72, paras. 20-21, pp. 73-74, p. 90). Some of his answers gave an evasive and naïve impression. During his testimony, the impression emerged that he was trying to minimize the acts in which he was involved or to give them other content in order to present them as legitimate, to remove responsibility for offenses, or at least to minimize their severity, even though his own case had already ended in a plea bargain. This was often done in a manner that did not reconcile with what he said in his statements and with documents from real time, and in a manner that was consistent with the interest of the defendants (for example, p. 83, paras. 23 - p. 84, s. 21, vs. P/2, s. 611; p. 88, s. 21 - p. 90, s. 5, with reference to P/5 and P/6, where he insisted that the coordination of the proposals with others was intended to prevent errors in the configuration, even though they clearly revolved around the price that he also referred to in his statement P/4. S. 301-305; P/3, paras. 424-426, where he explained that they tried to avoid noise due to an overly low price quote; Similarly, p. 108, para. 13 - p. 109, para. 9, with reference to P/18 and P/20 vs. his statement P/2 S. 484, where he said the opposite).