The failure to present the complete entirety establishes the presumption that the full content of the conversation would have prejudice Max's argument (Civil Appeal 465/88 Bank for Finance and Trade Ltd. v. Matityahu, IsrSC 45(4) 651,658 (1991) (hereinafter: the Bank for Finance case); the words there referred to the failure to bring relevant witnesses, but their force is also applicable to the partial presentation of documents and evidence).
- Thus far we have seen that the weight of the evidence, as presented, is undermined, in light of the "nothing" and the lack. But even the "is" is not unequivocal and does not satisfy the mind.
The Max company mentioned two quotes in its affidavits (e.g., in paragraph 24 of Max's counter-affidavit) and in its statement of claim (in paragraph 56 of the Ashdod claim). In accordance with the quotes, Mr. Shitrit said that Mr. Shimshon "[...] sent his brother as if [...] his brother was not in it [...] He [Mr. Shimshon] is actually the spirit behind him. But a review of the transcript in its entirety (Appendix 8 to the Ashdod lawsuit, on page 60, Q. 155-159) shows a more complex picture of things:
Yigal: Do you know Naftali Shimshon? Hodaya?
Interrogator: I know God, wait, wait. Naftali Shimshon told Roy that he was one of your owners.
Yigal: Owner. One of the owners and he is also one of the owners of... He has mussel complexes, in front of Sheva in Sderot, Beer-Sheva, he also deals in real estate.
It is possible to get the impression that in this conversation the interrogator is trying to put in Mr. Shitrit's mouth the statement that Mr. Shimshon is one of the owners. Mr. Shitrit's answer, as one can see, was truncated. The context of the words and their full meaning is not clear.
Later on, Mr. Shitrit notes that "he is actually the living spirit of the business" (ibid., p. 61, s. 168), but it is not clear who he is referring to, since a few lines earlier the name of another party was mentioned, namely Mr. Rafi Ben-Ami.