Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 234

Zeiger's unreliable testimony is joined by the picture that emerges from Zeiger's interrogation at the PA (P/218, paras. 224 ff.).  Zeiger was interrogated about the correspondence between him and Nahum in his first interrogation (6 May 2012), which took place less than three months after the events themselves.  The clear impression that emerges from the interrogation is that Zeiger gave evasive answers, often claiming that he did not remember trying to distance himself from the matter and was in contact with Nahum, denied key facts, and raised factual claims that were not true (which he retracted at the time of his testimony) in an attempt to take its meaning from the correspondence (see, for example, his answers in the interrogation that he did not remember  the MPR project  and its contents at all, and that he did not talk about it with Triple C or any of the competitors).  P/218, paras. 139-142; S. 154-162; his answers that he does not remember even after he was presented that this was a project in which a joint proposal was required for Unix servers and X servers  and that later the demand was split, paras. 166-169, paras. 557-561; his repeated answers that he does not remember the correspondence or that he does not know what Nahum meant or what he meant by what he wrote, for example, paras. 231-232, paras. 244-245, paras. 263-265; his repeated claim that Harel cannot buy from Triple C Unixes and sell them to ELTA,  S. 170-174, S. 266-275, S. 281-292, S. 467-468, in contrast to his version in the testimony, that he wanted to buy the Unixes from Triple C in order to sell them to Elta, p. 6041, s. 2-13, and see also p. 6036, s. 20-26; See his answer in the interrogation that when he wrote to Nahum "we have closed" he meant that they had closed that each of them would sell the servers that he knew how to sell separately, paras. 337-352, as opposed to his version in the testimony mentioned above; See similarly in relation to his reply to Nahum "OK", paras. 547-556, as opposed to the version in the testimony; See his argument that there was no need for cooperation between Harel and Triple C in the matter, paras. 356-358, in direct contradiction to the defense's basic argument today that there was no choice but to cooperate; And on and on; See also Zeiger's repeated statements in his testimony that in the first interrogation "I spoke nonsense," p. 6041, paras. 2-13, p. 6036, paras. 20-26).  This would undermine the credibility of Zeiger's version at the time of his testimony and undermine his claim that he did not agree to the settlement.  In his testimony, Zeiger repeatedly disavowed what he had said in his first interrogation with the PA and tried to explain his conduct and answers during the interrogation by saying that he was under "pressure" and was in a "blackout" (e.g., pp. 6038-6039).  This explanation raised a question mark.  It cannot be accepted (and see a similar reference in the context of the first charge, in paragraph 90 above).  Insofar as he did not agree to the arrangement with Nahum and there was no flaw in his conduct, it is not clear why Zeiger did everything in his power to evade and distance himself from the email correspondence while repeatedly getting involved in not telling the truth about it.