Defense Evidence
Testimony of the defendant in the main interrogation (November 24, 2022, January 23, 2023)
- As for the claim of tailoring a file, when the defendant was asked what the purpose of the investigation against him was, he replied, "To kill me, I don't know, I don't have an explanation, I don't have an explanation, I was too dominant, I think I was too emotional" (transcript of November 24, 2022, p. 552). Later, the defendant testified that the affair began on the basis of testimonies given by subcontractors and workers who do not know how the IPS operates, and that the interrogators' goal was to "lower the head" of the construction officer (the defendant). According to him, this can be seen in the videos from inside the interrogation room, in which, he claims, the interrogators try to influence the witnesses, directly or indirectly, and tell them that they are not "looking" for them, but the defendant. He also claimed that the affair began when he discovered that the Savyon Yard project in Neve Tirza was being conducted in a manner that was not in accordance with the procedures and illegally. People who were involved in the project decided to take revenge on it in order to protect themselves. According to him, at first he did not understand how a contractor about whom he had no influence could libel, and only after a careful examination did he discover double invoices to main contractors and "all kinds of things," and realized that it was worthwhile for the interrogees to cooperate and receive symbolic punishments (transcript of January 4, 2023, pp. 493-494).
- Regarding the circumstances of his arrest, the defendant described in his testimony that on November 1, 2018, at 5:00 A.M., there was a knock on the door, the police broke the door, pinned the defendant to the wall, and handcuffed the defendant. The defendant initially thought it was a robbery, when he saw 15 people coming in shouting with pistols drawn (transcript of November 24, 2022, p. 514). The defendant was taken handcuffed to the office and this is how everyone saw him (p. 515). He also claimed that he was not informed of the right to remain silent at that stage (p. 516).
Cross-examination (transcript of January 23, 2023, February 20, 2023)
- The defendant confirmed that he claimed that the police were "looking for him," inter alia, on the basis of Arik Shaked's interrogation, in which he was told that Arik was not looking for him, but only the defendant (transcript of February 20, 2023, pp. 511-512). According to him, during the four years in which he examined the material, he discovered things that showed that he was "searched" while there was a possibility of "looking" other people (p. 512). He went through all the interrogation material (p. 512). However, when asked what was the first action in the investigation file, he replied that it was a complaint by a doctor working in the IPS (Dr. Nona Rafaeli). The defendant claimed that there was a professional relationship between her and the defendant. The defendant was presented with a document written by Lt. Gen. Menashe Ganish (Commander of the Central District of the IPS) to the Disciplinary Officer, according to which on April 2, 2017, at the Nitzan Detention Center, after a Passover toast, Rabbi Nona Rafaeli approached him and told him that the defendant's wife wanted to meet him and that she had many things to say about the defendant in a criminal context. When asked to confirm that the entire investigation had begun because of this action of the defendant, the defendant replied "not sure" (pp. 513-514). According to him, at that time the defendants were conducting a divorce proceeding, he himself was chasing dresses, and the defendant wanted to tell the district commander that he had a lover (p. 514). The prosecutor emphasized to the defendant that three different people, who were not related to each other, had approached IPS officials in his case – the defendant, Roni Kofi and Reuven Gonen, which indicates that this was not an attempt to tailor a file (p. 515). The defendant replied that the defendant's case was different, that Reuven Gonen had an interest, and added contemptuously: "Who is Roni Coffey" (p. 515).
- As to the circumstances of the arrest, the prosecutor referred the defendant to exhibits from the day of his arrest (P/156, P/159 and P/163 above). The defendant denied that he had acted violently and threateningly towards the police officer (transcript of January 23, 2023, pp. 544-545). He does not remember threatening the police officers (transcript of February 20, 2023, p. 501). To the claim that the police took the handcuffs off his hands after he calmed down, he replied that they took him out of his house handcuffed in front of the neighbors and also brought him into the IPS offices (transcript of January 23, 2023, pp. 546-547). The defendant did not rule out the possibility that the police officers wore police hats, identification badges, and identified themselves as police officers, but claimed that when they woke up at 5:00 a.m., "they didn't notice" (p. 20.2.2023, p. 503).
The defendant testified that the interrogator, Sgt. Marciano, conducted himself in the interrogation as a pleasant person. To the claim that Marciano described the morning of November 1, 2018, in the same manner as the other policemen, and was not cross-examined, the defendant replied that Marciano "went along with them" (p. 507).
- I will also briefly mention the defendant's claim in his testimony (transcript of January 23, 2023, pp. 537-540, a claim that did not appear in the defense's summaries), according to which Adv. Ehrenfeld submitted the response to the indictment on his own, without the defendant seeing and approving it. It was also claimed that Adv. Nizri, who stepped into Adv. Ehrenfeld's shoes, did not present the defendant with the response to the indictment submitted by his predecessor (it should be clarified that no amended response to the indictment was submitted). However, the defendant also stated that he did not want to harm his defense attorney, and when asked if he had met and sat with his defense attorney before his testimony in court began, he replied: "A technical matter." It should be noted that already at this stage during the hearing, I made it clear that I do not accept the argument that Adv. Ehrenfeld fabricated the response to the indictment. The defendant's answer that the meeting with his lawyer was a technical matter is also unreliable, to say the least, and the defendant's concern that Adv. Nizri would not be harmed is inconsistent with his claim that he failed against him. The allegation regarding the ongoing failure of his two defense attorneys, which was made casually and was not heard later on, does not inspire any confidence.
Exhibit N/5
- The defense submitted on Disk on key a number of edited videos from the police interrogations of some of the witnesses in the case (P/5). The accuser objected at the hearing to the submission of the edited videos, arguing that if the defense had wished to present the evidence, he should have slammed his statements to the police in the framework of a cross-examination of that specific witness and submitted all his statements to the police. When the defense chose not to do so, the accuser argued that it should be determined that exhibit N/5 should be inadmissible. Indeed, edited videos from police interrogations should not be submitted to the court. In addition, the (edited) statements of the witnesses to the police constitute foreign statements, and the defense did not deal with what is stated in section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance in order to determine the admissibility of the statements, and in any case it appears that these edited videos do not meet the conditions set out in section 10A.
More than necessary, I will note that the defense went further and argued in its summaries, but this: "N/5 speaks for itself". In these circumstances, I hold that exhibit N/5 is inadmissible.