Today (Monday) the cross-examination of state witness, Shlomo Pilber, by the defense attorney of Benjamin Netanyahu, Adv. Boaz Ben-Zur, continues. Adv.
One of the great successes of Adv. Ben-Zur in the cross-examination is in proving that the directive meeting, which the defense denies at all, could not have taken place at the time written in the indictment, close to Pilber's appointment as director general of the Ministry of Communications.
Following this, the prosecution sought to amend the indictment regarding the date of the directive meeting, which forms the basis of the 4,000 case, but encountered opposition from the defense and harsh criticism from the judges.
Netanyahu's attorneys' response to the prosecution's further request to amend the indictment states that "the completion of the investigation already conducted by the accuser revealed zero connection between Hadas Klein's' new 'stories and Netanyahu. The request to add witnesses is another attempt to harm Netanyahu and his family."
Yesterday, defense attorneys for the opposition filed another motion with the court to remove confidentiality from investigative materials pertaining to journalist Ben Caspit.
According to the request, which concerns Ben Caspit's legal source: "This petition is filed after Caspit was exposed in media publications as a police source and even clarified himself that he cooperated with the police and provided them with information and that he would not hesitate to do so in the future. "On the identity of the source, there is no longer any justification for leaving the confidentiality of investigative materials related to Mercury."
The request also states that "the disclosure of the materials will shed light on the conduct of the police in the months, and possibly years, prior to the Attorney General's approval to investigate the suspicions against the petitioner in December 2016 (contrary to Basic Law: Government). "And you may expose another violation in that the person who operated Caspit was not a junior intelligence officer, but senior police officials, also in violation of procedures."
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us