• news

• News in Israel

• Criminal news and law

The State Attorney's Office: To reject Netanyahu's requests for additional investigative materials

In its response to the Jerusalem District Court, the state rejected the defendants' requests in the 1000, 2000 and 4000 cases, including Noni Mozes and the Elowitz couple.

The prosecutor's office claimed: "The law enforcement authorities did everything possible to make the material of the investigation accessible"

Tags

• Benjamin Netanyahu

• Sentence

• Shaul Alovich

• Noni Moses

• File 1000

• File 2000

• File 4000

Daniel Dolev

Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 5:35 p.m.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• The court is hearing the appeal of the murderer Einav Rogel on the decision not to ...

• The police arrested a young woman in Tel Aviv who did not wear a mask and refused ...

• Netanyahu v. Spokesman: Expects Equal Treatment of Threats ...

• Murder in Kiryat Haim: A woman was found lifeless in an apartment, ...

• Murder in the WC: 67-year-old woman was found lifeless, her partner threatened ...

• Attack on protesters against Netanyahu in Haifa, October 17, 2020

• Iyad al-Halak's parents on the decision to charge the policeman ...

• The court hears an application for a restraining order threatening Liat ...

• Documentation: Murder of a 20-year-old man in Be'er Sheva, two suspects arrested ...

• The brother of the bride whose wedding was dispersed in Givat Zeev: A policeman gave me ...

• The detention of Rabbi Netanel Shrikki, who is suspected of committing acts ...

• The detention of Dmitry Tsignok, who is suspected of murdering his partner Anastasia ...

Hearing in the Jerusalem District Court at the Beginning of the Evidence Stage in the Netanyahu Trial (Edited by: Avichai Baruch)

The prosecution today (Wednesday) rejected the defendants' requests in the 1000, 2000 and 4000 cases regarding the receipt of additional investigative materials.

"The law enforcement authorities did everything possible to make the investigation material provided available for inspection by the defendants, and to provide them with the full information regarding the material collected in the case," the prosecution wrote in its response to the Jerusalem District Court.

"Thus, materials, which are highly doubtful whether the right of access does apply to, were also handed over to the defendants."

According to the prosecution, "The vast majority of the materials were scanned, and handed over to the defendants in a way that facilitates access to them. For many months the accused has been available to the defendants in their various requests to locate this or that material. All this to ensure defendants are given full opportunity to evaluate The charges against them, and to formulate their defense arguments, and in order to streamline the stage of clarifying the allegations concerning the investigation material. "

More on Walla!

NEWS

Where's Pilber?

The considerations behind determining the order of the witnesses in the 4000 case

To the full article

(Photo: Reuters)

The prosecution added that "a review of the defendants' requests reveals that a significant portion of them deal with materials that have long been excluded from the Supreme Court's ruling as' investigative material '; another part does not deal with requests for investigative materials at all, but flatters claims. That they intend to argue further; and again another part reveals requests for clarification, which are difficult to understand the connection between the proceedings before us.There is, therefore, after the selection of the hay from the wild, that the defendants' claims show that "And even if there has been some mistake in this context of the right of access to 'investigative material', it is the margins of the indictment before us."

The prosecution's response alleges that the defendants are actually trying, through requests for interrogation materials, to raise allegations that are out of place at a later stage - such as allegations of defense of justice due to allegedly improper interrogation exercises.

"It is particularly clear that the defendants seek to expand the scope of the right of access to advance preliminary claims they intend to raise before the Honorable Court in due course, and in particular a claim of defense of justice, or claims for disqualification of evidence," the prosecution argued.

"Accordingly, the defendants devoted most of their requests to dramatic and extensive descriptions of the scandalous conduct - in their view - of the investigation in our case, while performing - again, in their view - improper interrogation exercises. In essence, the accuser would argue that ' .

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments