Netanyahu Defense Claims Key Documents Were Withheld From Attorney General
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team argued in court that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit may not have received crucial exculpatory evidence before indicting Netanyahu. Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented phone location data of a state's witness and a report on meetings with businessmen, claiming these could have altered the decision to indict. The defense is demanding to confront Mandelblit with these documents to argue for a dismissal of charges based on a flawed process.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's defense claims former AG Mandelblit may have been unaware of key exculpatory evidence.
- Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented phone data of witness Shlomo Filber and a report on meetings.
- The defense argues this information could impact witness credibility and the decision to indict.
- They seek to confront Mandelblit with the documents to prove a procedural flaw.
- The court hearing focused on whether the approving authority received complete information.
During a hearing at the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense team argued that crucial evidence may have been withheld from the former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit before he decided to indict Netanyahu. Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented two key documents: the phone location data of state's witness Shlomo Filber and a report detailing meetings between Netanyahu and businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer.
Haddad contended that it is a legal obligation to investigate whether Mandelblit was aware of this "material and exculpatory information" in real-time. He specifically focused on Filber's location data, suggesting it could impact the credibility of Filber's testimony regarding a key meeting alleged with Netanyahu, which is central to the prosecution's case. The defense is demanding to confront Mandelblit with these materials to establish a claim of a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process.
The defense also highlighted a report prepared by Idan Adiram, which documents meetings between Netanyahu and businessmen Milchan and Packer, along with driver testimony. Haddad stated this document "completely changes the picture" presented by the police regarding these meetings and questioned whether the full details were presented to the approving authorities. He argued that if the Attorney General received incomplete or distorted information, it constitutes a severe procedural defect justifying a "defense from justice."
The core of the dispute, according to the defense, is not just the content of the documents but the institutional question of who among the decision-makers was exposed to them before the indictment and their potential influence on the final judgment. The defense seeks to present these materials to Mandelblit to determine if he received the complete relevant evidentiary picture, potentially setting a legal precedent if exculpatory or undermining evidence was withheld from the statutory approving authority.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Right 2
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
