"Let it be known that I am a witness on your behalf (the prosecution), but I am under your threat, because they are managing the 3000 case against me. I am under their sword in another case, for five and a half years they have been abusing me and my family members...
"My mother, 85 years old, was taken to Lahab 433, her bank accounts were closed when her son was arrested. She had to ask for money. They also decided to put my wife under house arrest, and every time I was under extended detention I was informed: 'If you expect to see your wife - don't expect She is in our hands, and the children will be taken away from the welfare
.
I'm not calm, and feel totally threatened."
This is how the prosecution testimony of David Sharan, the former chief of staff in Netanyahu's office, opened this week.
"The investigator in the submarine case told me: 'Bring anything about Netanyahu, we'll deal with you.'"
The editor, my dear friend, asked me what I would write about this week.
I answered - about the trial.
He wondered if I had anything to update after last week's column.
I told him: Think I'm Emile Zola writing about the Dreyfus trial.
After all, you wouldn't say to him, "What do you have to add to the trial?".
It is forbidden to remain silent in the face of injustice, malice, and opacity.
Sodom corner of the Stasi.
Who approved dragging an 85-year-old normal citizen to 433?
Whose hand didn't shake when he signed an order to confiscate her bank account?
Who sent an 85-year-old woman to beg?
The heart goes out to Lt. Col. (res.) Sharan. Shocking. Shocks everyone who hears. But it seems that the judges who remained silent were less impressed. Well, they can't imagine that someone would dare to arrest their mother just to pressure a witness. This Save for plebeians.
But put the cruelty aside, because the abyss that was discovered this week is much deeper.
"Those who fight monsters must be careful, lest they become one. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks at you."
And Nietzsche was right.
A week ago, Maimon Shamila and Dr. Yifat Ben Chai Segev testified. Both said that despite their repeated requests, they were not shown documents, diaries, WhatsApp messages during the investigation. They testified that the investigators lied to them, deliberately misled them. They created for them an alternative and disconnected reality, which prevented of which to present the full truth in the investigation.
This week Sharan took the stand and discovered to his astonishment, only during the cross-examination, that he was a victim of the same practice.
Attorney Carmel Ben Tzur presented to the court and to some extent video clips from his investigation, showing how the investigators constructed his memory that the person who brought the approval documents for the Bezeq-yes merger for Netanyahu's signature was the spokesperson for the Ministry of Communications, Dana Neufeld.
To conclude the episode, Ben Tzur presented two photos to David.
On the right is Maimon Shamila, and on the left is Neufeld.
"Do you recognize?" she asked.
"Yes," replied the witness.
"Are they similar?" she asked.
Everyone laughed.
"Of course not," replied the witness.
We have shouted for years - selective enforcement is evil, who guards the guards?
The defense of justice screams like a neon sign in Times Square
Attorney Ben Tzur continued: "Just so you know that the one who signed the PM was Shamila, not Neufeld."
Sharan: "I'm shocked, it's just crazy. People who represent the state do such a thing? If one of my employees did this, he would be fired on the spot. It can't be that people under the state symbol are lying."
Judge Bar-Am turned to the prosecution, and asked: "Did it come up in the main investigation?"
"Yes," replied the witness.
The prosecution was silent.
A few hours before, in the main investigation, it went like this:
Claimant: "In June 2015, a control transfer measure was signed. The request that was requested, remember what your involvement in the process was?".
Sharan: "Yes. At first I didn't remember, you reminded me. You're talking about a document... Mr. Filber was abroad, he told me 'I'm flying, I'll send you a letter with the legal advisor or someone from the office, it's important to sign.'
An urgent matter for him.
Filber, not the Prime Minister. A legal advisor arrived, I let her in to the Prime Minister and he signed the document."
After the break, Sharan told the court: "My lady (turning to Judge Friedman Feldman) asked me this morning if I felt a little better than yesterday. That was true, until the bomb they dropped on me before the break. I only felt such emptiness during my father's shava.
"(Turning to the prosecutor's office) You trust me. How can a citizen believe you? That's why you didn't refresh my testimony. An hour ago it was implied that I wasn't telling the truth because I didn't mention the amount of cigars that Netanyahu smokes, and on the other hand they impeach me for perjury.
"From that moment, I sit outside with the feeling that it cannot be a body that trusts your rights and needs to investigate the truth and check (is doing so) - but not in a tract of lies and fraud!".
Notice what an amazing occurrence.
Shmila testified at length, just a week ago, about the circumstances that brought him to Netanyahu to sign it.
Despite this, the prosecutor's office again brings up the false thesis that Sharan understood in the investigations, and leads him to testify falsely in court.
Until the cross-examination, the simple understanding emerges that the honorable court did not pay any attention to the contradiction between Mania and Bia.
If the prosecution witness that Mila testified that he was the one who brought the documents to be signed, how do you allow the prosecution to give false testimony in the preliminary investigation?
Did the honorable judges forget what was said in the courtroom a week ago?
How can a conviction be based on the memory of witnesses, which in court turns out to have been reshaped by the investigators?
The defense team continues to reveal, in thorough work, the connection between the terrorism that was controlled in the investigations and the building of the memory of those investigated in the case.
They start with "no", then "don't remember", then "could be", and at the end agree with the researchers about events that could not have taken place.
The advocates present the construction process.
Contrary to the prosecution, which tries to enforce an unfounded thesis about reality by blackmailing witnesses, planting memories and a world free of material evidence - the defense dismantles the charges using documents that were not presented to the interrogators, neither in their investigation nor in their main testimony.
The defense proves that not only did the event not happen, it also could not have happened.
There is one thing more terrifying than a false conspiracy - and that is the resurrected conspiracy, turning from a far-fetched and airy creature into a hungry and terrifying cockroach.
We shouted for years.
Our throats were sore.
Selective enforcement is evil - who guards the guards?
There will be nothing because there really was nothing, except malice and marking a goal and sanctifying all the means to achieve it.
The defense of justice screams here like a flashing neon sign in Times Square.
There is a monster under the bed, and the monster is real.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us