With Benjamin Netanyahu’s cross-examination now finished, attorney Eyal Besserlilk argues that the “thousands cases” were marked by failures throughout, including problems in witness testimony, investigations and the prosecution’s management of the trial. He says the defense also has a major weakness, especially in Case 1000.
Besserlilk points to what he describes as a serious defect at the outset of the investigations, namely the alleged lack of authorization from the attorney general to open a probe. In his view, any evidence gathered without that approval is invalid and cannot be cured later. He says this issue emerged in testimony from investigators Habaquin, Sratzar and Saada, who, according to him, described unlawful questioning and said they wanted to report it in real time. He says this strongly supports the defense claim of selective or improper enforcement.
On Case 4000, he says that after Shlomo Filber testified, the judges stated, as required, that they saw no realistic possibility of proving bribery and urged the prosecution to drop that charge. He argues that doing so would have streamlined the case and eliminated many witnesses. Instead, he says, the prosecution ignored the court’s recommendation and insisted on pursuing the charge, which he says has only lengthened and complicated the proceedings.
He adds that the prosecution is under pressure after seeking to amend the indictment following Filber’s testimony, a request he says the court rightly rejected because Netanyahu had already answered and exposed his defense line. In Case 1000, he says the prosecution faces problems over the lack of attorney general approval, an unproven estimated quantity list by Hadas Klein, and a Winroth opinion that gifts may be accepted under certain circumstances and in limited amounts. He concludes that this is the prosecution’s only real strength, but still not a strong one.
