In addition, as a rule, more weight should be given to those parts both in the testimonies of the defendants Oshri and Zeiger and in the statements taken by the defendants in their interrogations with the Competition Authority, which were made contrary to their interest and on the basis of the assumption that they would not have implicated themselves in statements that could incriminate their actions if they were not true. Accordingly, it seems that as a rule, little weight should be given to the defendants' statements that are in line with their interests, especially where they did not reconcile with the overall evidentiary fabric and with the documents from real time. The analysis of the evidence in this context will also be done in light of the well-known rule regarding "plaginen speech", according to which it is possible not to view a witness's testimony or his external statement as a single piece that should be accepted or rejected as it is, but rather can be split and adopted only parts of it where there is support and a reasonable basis for the diagnosis, for example, with the help of other evidence and according to the tests of logic and common sense (among many: Criminal Appeal 8445/15 Anonymous v. State of Israel at paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge (as then described) A. Hayut (October 27, 2016); Criminal Appeal 5008/10 Anonymous v. State of Israel at paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge (as then titled) H. Melcer (March 14, 2011); Criminal Appeal 10152/17 State of Israel v. Khatib at paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge M. Mazuz (May 10, 2018); Criminal Appeal 6063/21 State of Israel v. Yassin in paragraph 56 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Elron (March 26, 2024); and with regard to the statements before the investigative authorities, see Yaakov Kedmi on the Evidence, Part IV 1849 (2009)).
Similarly, their statements in the interrogations and their testimonies in the trial of Shahar and Naveh, who were defendants and after they were convicted in plea bargains, testified as prosecution witnesses in the trial. Here, too, as a rule, more weight should be given to the parts that were said contrary to the interest and to the statements that constituted an admission of complicating facts, and less weight should be given to the statements in accordance with the interest and in an attempt to reduce the attribution when these are not consistent with the totality of the evidence.