Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 144

I also cannot accept Shohat's claims of "material failures" that arise from the online pricing emissions.  Shohat pointed out a number of alleged discrepancies in the outputs presented.  Ben Shmueli gave sufficient explanations for these.  Thus, for example, he explained that in the output entitled "System Log - Supplier Proposal Log" (P/208), the blank lines in the column "Carried out by" refer to the proposals submitted by Wischnitzer of EMAT, and that at some point after the pricing, Wischnitzer was classified as an inactive supplier and therefore the details relating to him did not appear in the output; and that after the reclassification was changed, it was possible to see the full data in relation to A.M.T. as well (p. 2254, s. 1 - p. 2255, s. 4, and the aforesaid at p. 2364, s. 1-20 does not change; Ben Shmueli also explained how things arise from the total output of the online pricing).  The same is true with respect to other inconsistencies claimed by Shohat.  Indeed, with regard to one matter, a question mark remains.  This refers to a specific entry in the output entitled "System Log - Chat Message" (P/210) that records messages sent during the online pricing, whether by Shkanevsky to the participants or by any of the participants to Schneevsky.  The content of the timely advance message in the output (09:55) is "Hello to all participants, I have opened the possibility for everyone to see the proposal that leads before you.  Good luck."  It seems that there is no dispute that this notice was sent by Shkanevsky (paragraph 1092 of the accuser's summaries).  This is also evident from the content of the message.  Notwithstanding what is stated in the extract, it is recorded that it was Shochat who sent it (ibid.).  There is no real explanation in this regard from Ben Shmueli (pp. 2358-2359).  However, such a discrepancy or mistake does not degrade the ground under the record as a whole or degrade it and its credibility (see and compare: Criminal Appeal 8899/06 Armin v. State of Israel at paragraph 15 of the judgment (29 July 2007)).  In this context, we will add that there was no dispute that the pricing took place on the morning of September 15, 2011, during the hours indicated in the online pricing sliplets, and it was not claimed by any of the participants in the online pricing that he remembered submitting bids different from those that were documented, or that it is inconceivable that any bid that was recorded as such that he submitted was actually submitted by him.  On the contrary, Shochat himself tried to explain in his testimony the logic of making each of the offers he made – in accordance with the registration in the online pricing slips – in order to support his claim that he tried to compete (see pp. 6775-6782, para. 113 of Shohat's summaries, and see also paragraph 106 of Shohat's summaries, where he claimed that his final bid in the online bidding was $365,400, in a manner consistent with the registration in the outputs, N/100).