Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 211

As stated above, no evidence was presented to indicate that any of the civil appeals asked the competing suppliers to coordinate proposals, to provide coordinated proposals, or that the ordering person's people knew about the coordination in the indictment.  Shachar himself testified in his main testimony that the procurement people in a civil appeal did not know about the transfer of the bids between him and Gilad or between him and the others (p. 2919, paras. 15-19, where he repeated the words once again to the court's question; see also his words in his first interrogation with the Authority, P/557(1), paras. 274-277, paras. 323-335 there, after vague and general answers, as if sometimes the civil appeal was known and sometimes not.  that "they are not interested in knowing", that he does not remember a name or a specific incident, and that he finally retracts it and that he does not know whether the people of the civil appeal knew about the coordination).  Naveh testified regarding the charges in which he was involved that Elta – the principal – did not ask the suppliers to coordinate (p. 114, paras. 19-23).  Indeed, in his cross-examination, Shahar claimed in a general and casual manner that the civil appealers were well aware of the coordination, and that he did not mention this in his interrogations with the authority in order to protect them and did not want to complicate them (p. 3002, s. 19 - p. 3003, s. 17; p. 2985, s. 2-17; p. 3014, s. 15 - p. 3018, s. 4).  This version of Shachar – as we have already seen above – was mine-based, illogical, and manifestly unreliable (see, for example, paragraph 308 above).  It is not for nothing that he did not have satisfactory answers to the questions he was asked by the court and to the question that arose from the position that he had spared the people of the civil appeal and not Oshri with whom he had a close relationship, and at the time of his testimony he adopted the opposite approach (ibid., see also the convoluted testimony, pp. 3001-3006, in connection with P/577(1), paras. 324-335 and the difficult answer to the court's questions there; see also his retreat later in his testimony to general and vague statements as if some of the procurement people knew.  p. 3082, s. 7-11, p. 3102, s. 10-20).