The state's response indicates that the defense attorneys were only provided with a missing transcript in critical parts. • The State Attorney's Office will clarify what additional information it has regarding gaps between the recordings and the transcripts.

• Shaul Alovich in 2018

  Photo: 

  Archive - Gideon Markovich

The state today (Tuesday) submitted its response to the request of the defense attorneys of businessman Shaul Alovich, who is accused in the 4000 case, to clarify whether there are additional gaps over those revealed in the first hearing, between the material to be transcribed and to re-transcribe all interrogation material if deemed necessary. .

"In this regard, the accuser will clarify that she does not have any 'additional information' about what the defense has regarding specific gaps between the recordings and the transcripts of the interrogation transcripts within the investigation material ... , Wrote in response.

In doing so, the prosecution admits for the first time that it was headed by an accurate and faithful transcript of the source of that spoken word meeting between investigator Or Elowitz, the defendant's son, but it was not transferred to the defense.

Instead, a transcript was passed that was missing in critical parts, which allegedly incriminated the prosecution's investigation exercise.

It should be noted that Spokesman Mandelblit himself examined and found that there was no flaw in the conduct of the State Attorney's Office, and was supposed to be exposed to the same internal document of the State Attorney's Office that was not transferred to the defense, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Photo: Yoni Rickner

The prosecution describes how after the Bar Association's appeal was made, the recording was re-listened to because "the audio documentation is the required original vision while the transcript is only auxiliary vision, so examining claims in relation to the event itself required an examination of the original vision." The accuser acted in this way also in light of the fact that the transcript includes indications of deficiencies in relation to the recording. "

It then explains how an internal working paper was prepared with the exact and correct transcript, which included "focused and spot corrections in certain sections of the conversation that were relevant to examining the allegation made", and also explains that "this is an internal record of the accuser, and for that reason it was not transferred to defense."

Last August, the court ordered the prosecution to specify whether it had an amended transcript of the conversation between the investigator and Elowitz's son, in which an attempt was allegedly made to separate him from his defense attorney, who opposed a state witness agreement, and if so - when and why he was not given defense.

With the disclosure of the discrepancies between the transcript submitted to the defense and the recording, this provoked echoes and protests including a request from the chairman of the Bar Association, Avi Chimi. The prosecution was also required to clarify what additional information the accuser has about discrepancies between the recordings and the transcripts. All the transcripts in the file so that the defense can make corrected transcripts on them while marking the gaps, as well as explain why the accuser will not make a new list of the material collected, which correctly reflects the contents of the documents and their marking.