Cross-examination
- The witness confirmed that he has no expertise in engineering supervision, he is not a construction engineer, but he can perform visual supervision of the execution of a project (pp. 687-688). The witness ended his position in the district in 2016, and has no connection to what happened in the district afterwards (p. 688).
The accuser's summaries
- The accuser argued that from all the testimonies and evidence, a clear picture emerges of a very simple feasibility of using the "inflated" mechanism (creating "inflated" price quotes or dictating them to contractors), due to the professionalism of the defendant and the trust placed in him by his commanders over the years. It was further argued that the telephone call No. 5030 speaks for itself. The defendant was employed as a civil servant with a fixed and unchanged salary, taking sick leave does not change the salary, and the opening of large projects is also not supposed to be relevant to the defendant's monthly salary. This conclusion is supported by the reprimand regarding the telephone conversation on this subject and the fact that the defendants did not give a satisfactory explanation for the content of the conversation.
The defense's summaries
- The defendant is the construction officer of the Central District, but he is only a small part of the chain of those responsible for the construction issue in the district and an even smaller part of the IPS's large system of construction. In its summary, the defense described in great detail the IPS's work processes in the field of construction, claiming that the description negates both the defendant's responsibility for construction in the district, and the possibility that the defendant received bribes (and at the very least, raises reasonable doubt in these matters).
I will note that the defense noted that all of the above was "in accordance with IPS procedures, the Commission's orders and the relevant legislation in this field," but did not elaborate on these sources, nor did it refer to testimonies or other evidence submitted in the case. The defense further argued that Ran Oppenheim lacked a relevant professional background in the field of construction, and therefore his testimony on the matter was irrelevant.