• news

• News in Israel

• Criminal news and law

The State Attorney's Office rejected the deputy head of DIP's claims against Nitzan: "There was no defect"

Rosen accepted the position that the decision not to open an investigation against former commissioner Danino regarding his relationship with an officer in the organization, as well as to investigate another officer, was justified. However, he criticized misleading data: "Serious failure, present partial data."

Tags

• David Rosen

• Shai use

• DIP

• Bar Menachem Foundation

Daniel Dolev

Sunday, 13 December 2020, 22:40

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• Extension of detention for the suspect in the murder of his mother in Rehovot 12.12.20

• Murder in the streets: A 50-year-old woman was stabbed to death, her son arrested

• Released from the custody of Yuli Zolkovich's partner, who died from ...

• 20 months imprisonment for a man who stole a yacht from the marina in Tel Aviv

• The Supreme Court is considering the request for a retrial of Roman Zadorov ...

• The mother suspected of murdering the baby has been released under house arrest: "The report ...

• Shirbit CEO: "We are working for a quick return to activity ...

• Petition of the Moral Purity Movement demanding the appointment of a CEO ...

• Garden owners have been accused of causing damage to an eight-year-old baby ...

• Suspicion of two murders - a man shot dead near Lod, a young man ...

• Family members of the 16-year-old boy who was murdered in the north: "There is no ...

• Recordings by Yuli Zolkowitz: "He hit me and knocked me out ...

Iyad al-Halak's parents react to the decision to accuse the policeman of shooting him to death (Photo: Roni Kanfo)

The Attorney General of the State Attorney's Office, retired Judge David Rosen, today (Sunday) rejected a series of allegations raised by the deputy head of the DIP, Adv. Moshe Saada, against the head of the department, the Bar Menachem Foundation, and against the former State Attorney, Shai Nitzan.

However, Rosen criticized Nitzan and Deputy State Attorney Shlomo Lemberger regarding data provided by the State Attorney's Office in its response to a previous complaint.

Heart of the matter in the relations between the Superintendent T. and the former head of the former police intelligence, Brigadier General Guy Nir, and between former police chief Yohanan Danino. Who first approached about the Count was retired Commander Yaakov Borovsky.

Decision to publish Rosen ago For about a year and a half, he found that an examination of media research conducted by DIP in Che's case revealed unusual connections between her and Nir and between her and Danino.

Despite this, Nit and former DIP head, Uri Carmel, decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings regarding her relationship with Nir, and did nothing about their relationship with Danino. The

prosecution then also argued before Rosen that there were significant differences in communication investigations between Ch and the two senior officers. - And they are the ones who justified the decision to open only a disciplinary investigation against Nir, and to shelve the findings in the Danino case. They emphasized that the decision was also made in the opinion of the then head of DIP, Carmel.

More on Walla!

NEWS

Senior DIP court: "The department is almost completely paralyzed"

To the full article

Previous developments in the case of Rafak Ch

• Commissioner Rosen: An investigation into suspicions against Danino about a relationship with an officer was blocked

• Case of Guy Nir: It appears that the indictment against him will be dismissed

• Disciplinary indictment against Lt. Gen. Guy Nir: False reports and misconduct

• Important: This is how you will prepare your car for the winter and reduce the dangers

You accepted the allegations, but were sharply criticized.

Rosen (Photo: Yonatan Zindel, Flash 90)

In recent months, Rosen's deputy head of DIP, Adv. Moshe Saada, and until recently the head of DIP's division, Sen. Dovi Scherzer, have approached Rosen.

The two claimed that the top prosecutor's office hid information from Rosen regarding Shai Nitzan's handling of the same case that concerned Danino and Guy Nir, as well as regarding Czech's complaint that she had been sexually harassed by Superintendent Roni Rittman.

In the background, Saada and Scherzer have long been in conflict with the current DIP leader, the Bar Menachem Foundation. The two have on several occasions, including before the court, made serious allegations against Nitzan's conduct and conduct. According to them, Bar Menachem was appointed by Can to maintain The State Attorney's Office and the police, also at the expense of the department's mission - to investigate offenses against police officers. On the other hand, Bar Menachem also claims in its current response to Rosen that Saada aimed to "avenge his lack of appointment as DIP director" and "thwart the attorney's appointment. The former state (Nitzan) to be tried in the Supreme Court. "

In order to resolve the complaints, Rosen asked for responses from Bar Menachem, Nitzan, Speaker Mandelblit, former DIP head Carmel, other DIP officials who were involved in formulating the response to Borowski's complaint - as well as from Ms. herself. In the end, as stated, Rosen decided to dismiss the complaints concerning Nitzan's conduct.

In a confrontation with Saada.

Head of DIP Keren Ben Menachem (Photo: Flash 90)

Thus, for example, it was alleged at a meeting at which it was decided to appoint an examining officer regarding the connections between Guy Nir and Ch.

Both Nitzan and Uri Carmel did not deny the same conversation, claiming that there was no defect in it.

They made it clear that the call was made because it did not include the matter relating to an investigating officer Brigadier General rank officer without informing the police commissioner, and only after all the participants at the meeting agreed that there is no cause to examine the relationship between the Czech Danino criminal or disciplinary examination.

Bud also was behind the decision To transfer to the police only the communication research between Chanin and Nir, and to lock in a safe those who touched Danino. He said that in light of the decision not to investigate the connection between Chadino and Danino, there was no justification to transfer the communication research to the police. , stating that there was a flaw in their decisions.

Nitzan also attacked Saada in its response to the Commission, and wrote that the deputy director of the PIU was aware of all decisions and shared them, and made no complaint about them in real time.

"With all due respect, the fact that today - about five years after the date of the events - this conduct is presented by Adv. Saada as problematic, very puzzling, to say the least," Nitzan wrote. "This is not someone who did not know how to stand firm ... "Adv. Saada's silence at the time, when things are happening, speaks for itself, and unfortunately raises question marks about his own conduct today."

Complaints were denied.

Nitzan, 2019 (Photo: Shlomi Gabay)

Contrary to his decision in the Borowski complaint, this time Rosen appealed for Che's response.

She replied that she herself had fallen victim to the circumstances, "when the things presented in the media, as well as in my previous decision, do not reflect the true truth."

"Che told of her years of work in the police force where she donated and sacrificed everything she did for the benefit of the police, being valued and recognized as a very good officer," Rosen wrote.

"She denied any romantic connection with Mr. Danino. According to her, time and time again she asked DIP to perform a polygraph test to verify her remarks, but to no avail." The officer added and testified to Rosen about "the mask of torment she went through, and still passes, In the significant legal proceedings to which it has been dragged in recent years.

According to her, there is nothing in these proceedings really and all of them as an act of revenge and / or protection measures for other elements who are at the top of the police. "

Rosen was furious: "Presenting the data as detailed above - is not appropriate"

The issue on which Rosen criticized the State Attorney's Office is the media studies that were forwarded to him as part of the response to Borowski's complaint from last year.

This is a response that has also been approved by the Deputy Chief of Criminal Affairs, Lemberger, and also by Nitzan himself.

For example, in the same response, the Count was shown the number of phone calls between Chodnino in 2011-2012.

This, he says, is a negligible number.

However, when you also check the number of text messages between the two, the volume of calls jumps.

The messages were not mentioned in the response.

Rosen notes that the way things were presented to him in the state's, it was possible to understand the volume of contracts between Czech Brigadier General Nir 20 times the volume of the contracts between Danino, in practice, the ratio was less than four times.

This is a substantial figure, it is intended to justify to Rosen The decision to initiate proceedings regarding the connection between C. and Nir, and not to initiate a similar procedure regarding the connection with Danino.

Both Lemberger and Nitzan claimed to have confirmed the response sent to Rosen, but did not themselves go through the raw media research data to make sure the response faithfully reflected them.

The messages were not mentioned in the response.

Danino, 2015 (Photo: Reuven Castro)

Rosen was willing to accept that the data provided to him was not intended to mislead him, but still resented it.

"The presentation of the data as detailed above is inappropriate," he wrote.

"This is a state of affairs that can in no way be reconciled with. The State Attorney's Office improperly presented, partial data that it had to cast on the decision made in Danino's case."

Rosen later reiterated this more firmly: "I found that there was a serious failure in presenting the data of the media studies in which the State Attorney's Office chose the answer given by it as part of the investigation of Adv. Borovsky's complaint, which shed only partial light on the cases clarified by at the time. In order to represent the factual situation to the letter, to say the least.

"This is a conduct that is inconsistent with the prosecution's duty of full disclosure and maximum transparency, as expected of public servants in state institutions." Despite this, he wrote that he was not in the data to change the decision he made regarding Borowski's complaint.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments