According to the prosecution, Avi Rotenberg, who was in a romantic relationship with Judy Nir Mozes, was not involved in the investigation of the 2000 case at all • "Things were taken out of context"
Avichai Mandelblit and Shai Nitzan, in December
Photo:
Oren Ben Hakon
The State Attorney's Office this morning (Tuesday) rejects the report broadcast last night on News 12 in which it was alleged that the head of the investigation team that investigated the dormitory affair, Avi Rotenberg, was involved in a conflict of interest due to a romantic relationship with Judy Nir Mozes, sister of Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon (Noni) Moses, against whom an indictment was filed in the 2,000 case.
As reported, the chief of staff also had information about the material in the 2,000 case, and he did not tell his commanders at all on his own initiative about the connection with Nir Mozes and the conflict of interest, in addition to the allegedly improper connections that exist in the Umm al-Hiran case.
It was further alleged that senior police officer Roni Rittman also hid the information, and that then-State Attorney Shai Nitzan did not advance an investigation into the matter, even though DIP officials wanted to investigate the issue.
"We would like to clarify, after examining things, that the entire article is trending, distorted and takes things out of context," the prosecution said.
"Contrary to what was alleged, the police officer Rotenberg was not involved in the investigation of Case 2,000 at all; the investigative decisions in this case, as well as in the other Prime Minister's files, were made for purely factual reasons." For example, in another case, there was no evidence linking the prime minister to suspicions. He was also not questioned as a suspect; DIP's handling of the complaint in the Rotenberg case was also done for purely material reasons - the decision was questioned as to the existence of a suspicion of a criminal offense;
"The former state attorney's did not 'protect' former police commissioner Roni Alshikh for reasons related to the investigation of Netanyahu's cases. This is a manipulative presentation of the facts."
The prosecution sought to establish their accuracy, claiming: "Contrary to what was claimed in the article, the retired investigator Rotenberg was not involved in the investigation of the 2,000 case, in which Mr. Noni Mozes was charged. In fact, he left the investigative unit in June 2016, about six months before investigating the affair. "At the stage, only the first and only preliminary testimony was taken, which is not the testimony of any of the suspects in the case, and even in that he was not part of the investigative team. In fact, that is enough to omit most of the basis from the publication."
The prosecution also stated that the opinion published in the article, according to which there is supposedly room to open an investigation (and not an investigation, as published in the article) in Rotenberg's case, was only a preliminary opinion: "The opinion itself clarified that it is not clear what his part is in investigating case 2,000. He had no part in it.) After that, various other opinions were written. The statement in the article as if in the DIP 'they determined that there is no escape from an investigation' is false.
All that has been suggested is to conduct a test to clarify the matter as it is 'vague'.
At no point was it recommended that an investigation be opened by any of the DIP managers at the time.
Later, according to them, it was recommended that the case be shelved - a recommendation received by the DIP directorate on the opinion of the Deputy State Attorney.
"We emphasize that contrary to what is claimed in the article, a review of the genizah decision reveals that the decision not to open an investigation or investigation into the matter was made in isolation from considerations relating to case 2,000, in which investigator Rotenberg was not involved at all," the prosecution added.
"The reasons were professional, factual and there is nothing real in the conspiratorial allegations made in the article in this context as well."
Referring to the correspondence between then-State Attorney Shai Nitzan and then-DIP director Uri Carmel, the prosecution claimed that this was internal correspondence between directors that was partially quoted. "The email and the entire correspondence dealt only with the question of whether the State Attorney will publicly and frontally attack the police commissioner. In response to accusations leveled at DIP.
As is apparent from the correspondence, the then State Attorney believed that proper relations between the authorities were inconsistent with public attacks.
In the correspondence, there is no mention of Netanyahu's files and the connection between the things is unfounded, "they said." The DIP director also testified in his response that he interpreted the systemic considerations that State Attorney Nitzan spoke about regarding the need to maintain the prosecutor's office and the police, and not attack each other in public. It is untrue, detached and detached from their context in a manipulative and unfortunate way. "
Netanyahu responded to the article on his Twitter account, writing that the article "proved in correspondence between senior police and prosecutors - this is how they sewed cases for Prime Minister Netanyahu in criminal acts and while disrupting investigative proceedings."
Judy Nir Mozes also responded to the article on her Twitter account, writing that "unfortunately for the liars and distributors of Pike, since Adv. Rotenberg was not involved in the Netanyahu cases, he was exposed to the fact that Noni was involved in the 2,000 case only on the day he was arrested.
Not a minute before.
That’s why the whole hallucinatory story of the Bibi Shofar with the false headlines is unequivocally Pike News again.
And I will not expand. "