The Magna Carta, a document of rights from the 13th century, was the first step in the modern revival of Greek democracy.
The central legacy of the document imposed on King John has nothing to do with substantive democracy or the cause of reasonableness.
Democracy returned through the jury system, the cornerstone of common law.
Not a king is a judge, not even a philosopher, just an English people - or rather, the right to be judged by a group of people equal in status.
At one point the jury system was discontinued in the Anglo-Saxon colonies, the natives were suspected of ruling against the crown in case of rebellion.
Therefore, in Israel, although we follow the customary legal system, there are no jurors.
And not only are there no jurors, according to our law attorneys, laymen can not understand the legal realm at all.
It is, in forgiveness, a lousy nonsense that does not fit with reality.
Citizens in the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and many other democracies do not rise to the discretion and wisdom of Israelis. To decide whether a witness is lying or telling the truth is not a truth machine.
Therefore and accordingly, as a staunch supporter of democracy, I consider myself fully qualified to express my opinion on matters of law, witnesses, evidence and unfounded prosecution theses.
Now Bing is agile on the occasion of the Netanyahu trial going into recess.
Netanyahu is accused in the 1000 case of fraud and breach of trust (not the Gifts Law).
According to the prosecution, the case is based on two anchors.
Receiving the gifts in connection with his public position, and conflict of interest - deep friendships with Milchen and receiving gifts from him.
So far, the cross-examination has focused mainly on the first half of the indictment, receiving the gifts.
The main prosecution witness is Hadas Klein, Milchen's secretary.
Not an easy witness.
Unlike Pilber and Hefetz, who were blackmailed into testifying against Netanyahu, Klein belongs to the genre of Ilan Yeshua.
In my opinion, she appeared in the district with a high motivation for a back-up conviction in a media choir.
But Adv. Amit Hadad, whom the prosecution's mouthpieces tried to disparage, is not only thorough, intelligent and systematic, but also often bold and brilliant.
Haddad has to answer three questions: Why were the gifts given?
How many gifts were given?
And did Netanyahu demand them or did he know about such a demand?
At the start of the cross-examination last week, Haddad focused on laying the groundwork and foundation for his further investigation.
He planted mines and answered the first question.
Haddad opened with a presentation of the warm friendship between Sarah Netanyahu and Milchen and Klein.
He proved that the couple gave gifts to Klein, Milchen and his wife, contrary to Klein's main testimony.
As in all the Alps cases, a dubious police operation was revealed, which used Klein as a kind of "agent" to meet with investigators in parking lots and parks, where she passed on invoices and documents belonging to Milchen and Packer without their knowledge.
At the same time, oddly enough, the police did not carry out the search warrants on Klein's cell phones, which were miraculously broken and disappeared.
In the post-pegasus world, the citizen should ask himself if the police did not carry out the order because they already knew about the contents.
Maybe the content helps with the protection?
Maybe the content incriminates others?
Questions.
In addition, there was no recorded record of Klein's first two interrogations.
And here we come to the question of scope.
According to Klein, Netanyahu received champagne and cigars worth about NIS 690,000.
Klein claims he is also the only politician to have received cigars from Milchen.
In short, a unique connection.
Adv. Haddad's first goal was to undermine Klein's claims about the scope of the gifts (she claims: 65% of the champagne and 98% of the cigars Milchen purchased were transferred to Netanyahu). How did he do that? He used the purchase invoices, which indicate that most purchases Referred to Milchen's private consumption and not to Netanyahu.
Later, Hadad confronted Klein with the testimony of the driver, Yonatan Hasson, who handed over the shipments to Netanyahu.
Thus, it was revealed that during the entire period of the indictment (six years), Hasson, according to his testimony, traveled only 25 times to Jerusalem to hand Netanyahu champagnes and sometimes cigars.
A quick calculation shows that these are dramatically lower amounts than the indictment.
Haddad also demonstrated how according to Klein's initial version of the police, most of the purchases were directed for Milchen and not for Netanyahu.
Milchen purchased soft drinks on a huge scale, at a time when champagne was being purchased - 4,000 bottles in three months.
What it means?
Milchen purchased a large amount of soft drinks and this necessarily indicates a large-scale hospitality, in which champagne was probably also served, contrary to Klein's claim that there were not many entertainments.
Haddad also showed how the well-known joke about Milchen is his tendency to buy and give cigars to all his acquaintances, in contrast to Klein's claim that he gave cigars in Israel only to Netanyahu.
At the end of the last day of interrogation, the judges turned to the prosecution and asked for explanations regarding the methodology by which they calculated the scope of the gifts in the indictment.
Judge Baram also noted that Klein's assessments "do not want to say from the sleeve, intuitive statements," that is, are not based on objective data, and concluded that without her testimony we are "in a fog" regarding the scope.
When Haddad confronts Klein with the purchase data at Milchen, she is surprised by the information thrown at her.
Sometimes a small anecdote attests to the jury's credibility.
Haddad presents Klein with an invoice that records wholesale purchases of beverages, including Red Bull.
Klein replies "No, I do not remember Red Bull at Milchen's meals."
About a minute and a half later, Haddad asks, who consumed Red Bull?
Klein replies: "Arnon."
After a few minutes, Haddad presents another invoice, another Red Bull essay, Klein in response: "Arnon loved it very much."
In about five minutes, Klein changes a version from someone who does not remember Red Bull at Milchen's meals to someone who says Milchen really liked Red Bull.
A good juror has noticed these things.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we would love for you to share it with us