Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 238

These are clear things, contrary to interest, that should be given great weight.  In the summaries, Nahum and Triple C try to construct fragments of statements that preceded these statements.  This was done in an attempt to find support for the argument that Nahum's words did not revolve around the submission of coordinated proposals, but rather that the offer of Triple C alone would be higher than Harel's proposal, because Triple C could not be submitted at the prices of the Comptroller General, and subsequently it was argued – it appears – that the aforementioned coordination is with IBM (with reference to P/237, paras. 695-699).  However, these arguments also ignore the clear confession that emerges from the above, as well as what Nahum said earlier in his interrogation in his first response to the correspondence in question.  Thus, when the interrogator showed him what he had written to Zeiger, "I give you higher offers in coordination," Nahum replied: "It's problematic.  Problematic.  If I wrote like that, I'm problematic.  I don't want to win, I make an offer.  I don't want to win.  I concluded that I would pass my offer through Harel Cost, that is, at my price to the customer.  And I don't want to win.  If I don't want to win or I say I don't serve, or I put a high price..." (P/237, paras. 690-693).  It is clear from the announcement that Nahum understands very well that what he wrote in real time relates, as it clearly appears, to the submission of proposals in coordination.  As he tries to interpret them, and to get out of them, he understands that this is "problematic."  Only then does he try to retract his statement and propose a different interpretation from which Nahum and Triple C are trying to build, but later – and as quoted above – does he confirm that the intention was to submit two coordinated proposals, so that the Triple C proposal would be higher than Harel's proposal that would win.  Therefore, the attempt to find support for parts of statements in the interrogation, which were made in accordance with the interest, which are inconsistent with Scripture, and in particular since Nahum chose not to testify, should be rejected.