Following the court's order to the state to transfer all the investigation materials to the defense teams of Netanyahu and the Elowitz couple, the prosecution reported documents that were "found late"
Prime Minister Netanyahu
Photography:
Mark Israel Salem
Netanyahu trial: The
State Attorney's Office admits that it did not pass on the defense materials in the 4000 case.
According to the response, the six documents do not deal at all with the charges attributed to the defendants themselves.
The items in question are part of a very large amount of investigative material, and as stated, they were found late by the investigating unit and were not handed over to the State Attorney's Office and the Defense - but have now been transferred.
Photo: Yoni Rickner
The prosecution's response came following the court's decision in a hearing held earlier this month at the request of Benjamin Netanyahu and the couple Shaul and Iris Elowitz.
The hearing focused on several memoranda that were not transferred to the defense as part of the investigation material in the case, including one documenting a connection between the investigating unit and the detainee close to state witness Nir Hefetz, which took place in November 2019, after the hearings in the case.
The defense argued that these are material memoranda that can help and even change the nature of the defense, as they include meetings between an investigator and key state witnesses in the case and a request for cooperation on his part as well as wiretapping between a key state witness and a senior journalist.
Recall, the court ordered the prosecution to transfer the materials within seven days.
This is an achievement for defense - first, because the court ordered the transfer of many dozens of documents that the prosecution insisted on not transferring;
And secondly, since these are documents related to key witnesses in the case, including former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua and state witnesses Shlomo Pilber and Nir Hefetz.
The court also ordered the prosecution to hand over to the defense all the documents pertaining to a senior member of the DIP team who claimed that the police had deviated from their duties during the investigations, including the correspondence relating thereto.
Another achievement is expressed in the accuser's response to the defense's request.
The prosecutor's office claimed that this was a "fishing trip", a request that was not serious, that had no basis for postponing the trial.
However, the court, after reviewing the materials, ruled the opposite.