Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Contradiction Under Judge's Scrutiny
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit admitted to a contradiction in his testimony during the Netanyahu trial when presented with a document by attorney Amit Haddad. The document suggested the approval for investigating Netanyahu in Case 2000 was documented later than Mandelblit recalled. Judge Moshe Bar-Am pressed Mandelblit to clarify the discrepancy, and Mandelblit maintained his oral account was correct, despite contradicting the written record. This admission could weaken the prosecution's case and bolster the defense's claim of improper investigation procedures.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit admitted his testimony contradicted a document presented in court.
- The document reportedly showed the approval for Netanyahu's investigation in Case 2000 was later than Mandelblit claimed.
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am directly questioned Mandelblit about the contradiction between his words and the document.
- Mandelblit stated his current oral testimony was correct, despite acknowledging it conflicted with the written record.
- The defense argues this discrepancy undermines the legal basis for the investigation and could invalidate evidence.
During the primary questioning of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, attorney Amit Haddad presented a document that he claimed contradicted Mandelblit's testimony regarding the approval of Netanyahu's investigation in Case 2000. Mandelblit acknowledged a discrepancy between his testimony and the document but maintained his current account.
The core of the dispute centered on when the decision to investigate the Prime Minister under caution was made in the case concerning his conversations with newspaper publisher Arnon Nuni Mozes. Mandelblit testified that the decision was made before January 5, 2017, but struggled to pinpoint the exact date of the approval.
Haddad presented internal law enforcement documents, suggesting one discussed investigating Netanyahu only in Case 1000, with the approval for Case 2000 documented later. Mandelblit explained that to the best of his recollection, the decision to investigate Netanyahu under caution in both cases was made concurrently. Judge Moshe Bar-Am intervened, asking Mandelblit to clarify whether his current statement or the document was correct. Mandelblit stated his current statement was accurate, though he admitted it contradicted the document.
The judge pressed Mandelblit on how the formal approval for Case 2000 appeared in writing only on January 5, 2017, if the decision was made earlier. Mandelblit conceded he couldn't recall or provide clear documentation of an earlier decision, stating, "I don't remember, I'm trying to piece it together from memory." He later confirmed he had no prior approval documentation before January 5.
The legal significance of this exchange, particularly the judge's demand to choose between the written document and Mandelblit's oral testimony, raises questions about the witness's memory and the legal basis for the investigation into Case 2000. Legal principles generally favor documents created at the time over later oral testimony, especially when the witness admits to contradictions and memory struggles. Mandelblit's choice to prioritize his oral account over the official record significantly strengthens the defense's argument that the investigation lacked proper, documented approval before January 5, 2017, potentially invalidating earlier evidence under the "defense from justice" principle.
