The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Judges Against Prosecution: "Amendment of Indictment at This Time - Problematic" | Israel today

2022-05-25T07:23:24.369Z


Advocate Yehudit Tirosh admitted this morning that the section on the date of the directive meeting is incorrect • The judges attacked the prosecution • Yesterday Pilber stated that they tried to recruit him to a state witness before the ombudsman's approval was given.


The District Court this morning (Wednesday) heard the prosecution's request to amend the indictment regarding the directive meeting.

Yesterday, the state witness, Shlomo (Momo) Pilber, said that they tried to recruit him as a state witness against Netanyahu, before the ombudsman's approval was given.

"In our opinion, the amendment and the change of date in the sense that it extends the period is not a change of front nor a change of fact."

Advocate Yehudit Tirosh said and claimed that "the main thing in this section is the very existence of the facilitation meeting.

The date is not the main thing.

The requested change does not change the indictment and is not material.

If a court is convinced that there was a diagnosis and that it was before June 7 it would not be right for a court to be limited in determining this only because of the date in the indictment.

Certainly the defendants were given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Their main claim is that there was no such meeting and such a directive. "

Prosecutor Advocate Tirosh admitted that "we do not know yet what exact time the meeting was.

We should have given more weight to the correspondence with Ofer Margalit on the issue of time.

Had the correspondence been internalized by us it would have been presented in the supplementary inquiry of the witness.

We made a mistake. "

Justice Bar-Am valid: "Perhaps my lady will present one judgment of the Supreme Court that a comprehensive examination of evidence justifies an indictment amendment without changing the circumstances, I have not found. "The evidence? We will put the facts on the table. We are after many meetings on the subject. So ma'am says the defense will be prepared for another cross-examination?"

Shlomo Pilber at the Netanyahu trial (archive), Photo: Oren Ben Hakon

Judge Friedman Feldman added: "The witness did not speak about a meeting before the appointment, which is the date you are seeking to correct." 

Judge Bar-Am went on to ask Adv. Tirosh: "Do you have any additional evidence that establishes an earlier date?"

Judge Shaham teased the prosecution: "Is there a new thesis now? When did you think the meeting was now? Because one could get the impression that the defense dealt with the indictment's thesis. But with one reservation that now there is also no point of reference. From the same point where they announced an intention to appoint and north, without knowing what to examine. It is not so trivial this thing.



" Material.

You are not only claiming a date but also doing as a result.

And the defense examined this contention, whether it was consistent with what was alleged in the indictment.

The date is more substantial than just saying 'there was a point in time' ".

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2022-05-25

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.