The accuser's summaries
- The accuser argued that the claim of tailoring the files should be rejected because the investigation began from three different and independent directions, and taking into account that the bribe-givers had no motive to incriminate the defendant, because in doing so they confessed and incriminated themselves. It was further argued that all the allegations regarding the conduct of the police on the day of the defendant's arrest should be rejected.
The defense's summaries
- The defense, whose lion's summaries were prepared in response to the accuser's summaries, denied what was stated in the accuser's summaries and claimed that Exhibit N/5 spoke for itself and that Arik Shaked referred in his interrogation to the fact that he understood that "Arkadi is being sought."
Hearing and Determination of Claims
- The defendant claimed that in our case we were dealing with the tailoring of files, when he first testified that he had no explanation as to why they would want to make false accusations against him, and then claimed that it was a desire to take revenge on him for exposing the misconduct of IPS officials in the framework of the Savyon Courtyard project (a claim that was not substantiated by the evidence). However, the fact that the investigation was opened following a request from three different parties who were not acquainted, together with the fact that the price of incriminating the defendant was the price of self-incriminating many witnesses in the case, and the vast amount of information gathered through wiretaps, lead to the conclusion that the defendant's claim regarding the fabrication of files should be rejected. It should be noted that the defendant had difficulty dealing with the fact that the defendant was the one who first contacted an IPS official in his case.
He based his claim regarding the influence and pressure exerted on the witnesses in the police interrogation on Exhibit N/5, but as determined above, this exhibit is inadmissible. In addition, Arik Shaked did not recall in his testimony whether Marciano told him that they were "looking" for the defendant and not for him. Insofar as this has been said, I am of the opinion that they refer to the fact that the defendant is indeed the central factor in the case, who is at the center of all 16 charges, and that they do not constitute an admission by the investigator in tailoring files. To this, it should be added that according to Marciano's testimony, additional directions were examined, but no other IPS officials involved in the affair were discovered.