Ex-AG Mandelblit Continues Testimony in Netanyahu Trial, Faces Signature Questions

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit returned to the stand on Tuesday for his third day of testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mandelblit, called by the defense, faced questions from Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, regarding the investigation into the "Case 4000" allegations. The defense raised suspicions that Mandelblit's signature on the amended indictment was a copy of his signature on the original indictment, to which Mandelblit responded that he does not recall signing the amended document. He also admitted that he did not personally examine all 315 coverage incidents detailed in the amended indictment for Case 4000.

During previous testimony, Haddad presented the original and amended indictments, highlighting the similarity between the signatures. Mandelblit recalled signing the original indictment but could not definitively confirm signing the amended one, stating, "I have a tangible memory of me signing the original indictment against the Prime Minister. I have no factual memory of signing an amended indictment. I don't know if I signed." Haddad argued that a smudge on the letter 'Aleph' in both signatures indicated the same signature was copied, suggesting it was done without Mandelblit's knowledge.

Mandelblit did not accept Haddad's conclusion, stating he could not determine what happened based solely on memory and that it would surprise him. The defense's claim of signature copying has not been proven, and Mandelblit did not confirm his signature was forged.

Further questioning focused on the 315 coverage incidents in Case 4000, which allege preferential coverage of Netanyahu and his associates on the Walla! news site. It emerged that Mandelblit relied on the prosecution team's work rather than personally reviewing each incident before approving the indictment. Judge Oded Shacham Bar-Am questioned Mandelblit, asking if he relied solely on the prosecution, to which Mandelblit affirmed. Haddad contended that this reliance on the prosecution without independent review led to a partial understanding of the evidence.

Mandelblit also addressed investigations conducted without his explicit approval, admitting that some actions, including serious ones, proceeded without his direct authorization. He explained that while he did not expect to approve every single investigative step, he anticipated major actions would be brought to his attention. Regarding Case 3000, the submarine affair, Mandelblit testified that he did not identify any criminal suspicion against Netanyahu in that case and was unaware of police focusing their investigation on the Prime Minister.

The defense has sought to determine if investigations adhered to approvals and if the amended indictment was properly signed and authorized, questioning the extent of Mandelblit's personal review of the evidence. Mandelblit maintained that the decision to file the indictment was his personal one and emphasized his trust in the prosecution. Previous sessions saw clashes between Haddad and prosecution representatives over approvals for investigative actions and information provided to Mandelblit.