Jonathan Zindel, Flash 90
On Wednesday of this week Shani Cusacks, the mother of the billionaire James Packer, took to the witness stand in Jerusalem. In incredible timing, her testimony, which included a declaration of her hatred for Netanyahu, came the day after election day when over a million Israelis voted for Netanyahu and the bloc led by him won 64 seats.
Before we turn to the content of Kossak’s testimony, the achievement of defense attorney Amit Hadad cannot be ignored, which resulted in fatal damage to the credibility of the testimony and the attribution of personal interests to Kossak’s testimony against Netanyahu.
During the cross-examination, Hadad read statements to Cox from her police interrogation. Kosseks confirmed Hadd’s words that she and her family hate the Netanyahu couple. The defense attorneys even interpret Kouseks’ words that “we all” hate the Netanyahu couple, a hatred that also exists on the part of the two witnesses connected to Kouseks – Hadas Klein and Yonatan Hasson.
Cossacks: My boyfriend and I, my parents. Yes, we all hate the Netanyahu couple. despise them. They didn’t do anything to me. I did not serve them food willingly.
Haddad added and elicited a clear admission from Coxsack that she said in her investigation that she wanted to topple Netanyahu from power, but according to her she did not intend to do so.
Kusaks: I said in the investigation that I was the witness who would overthrow the regime of the Netanyahu family, it was in jest.
Haddad’s goal is to convince the court that Kouseks is testifying against Netanyahu due to her hatred for the couple, and that because of this she is plotting against them. Kouseks claimed that despite her positions she was telling the truth.
Kossak’s credibility in the eyes of the judges is critical, because if her credibility is questioned, the weight of her testimony against Netanyahu will be low. According to the prosecutor’s office, Kusaks’ testimony is supported by documents and other witnesses, and therefore her words are reliable.
Defense attorney Amit Haddad in conversation with the head of the prosecution team in Case 1000, Dr. Alon Gildin (Yonathan Zindel, Flash 90)
Cigars, champagne and goodies
Kouseks is the third prosecution witness who testifies that billionaire James Packer gave cigars and champagne to the Netanyahus. Kosseks stumbles after the personal assistant and driver of the billionaires, Hadas Klein and Yonatan Hasson.
During the main testimony, Kouseks said that all the boxes of cigars Packer purchased were given as a gift to Benjamin Netanyahu, except for one box that remained at his home after the investigations began.
Kusaks added that no cigars were given to anyone else, and that guests who smoked cigars smoked them from cigars bought in bulk and not in boxes. Similar things were said in their testimony by Yonatan Hasson and Hadas Klein.
Regarding the champagnes, Kosseks said that Moet-type bottle crates were purchased, and that after the investigations began, 5 crates remained. Because of this, Kosseks estimated that 75% of the champagne purchased by Packer was delivered to Sarah Netanyahu.
Kossaks also testified that the Netanyahu couple visited Packer’s house very frequently, even when Packer himself was not there. The couple made use of the home’s facilities, including the pool, even before Packer entered his home. According to Cossacks, during the visits Binyamin Netanyahu smoked cigars and Sara Netanyahu drank champagne. Sometimes, the couple received cigar boxes and champagne boxes.
Netanyahu smoking a cigar in 1997. Archive (Flash 90)
The cross-examination: credibility was compromised; Was there a ‘supply line’?
When examining case 1000, it should be remembered that the defense does not claim that there were no champagne and cigars. The dispute between the prosecution and the defense is whether there was a real “supply line” between the billionaires and Balfour.
The prosecution believes that there was a regular supply line of cigars and champagne, and the defense claims that it is a limited number of cases in which cigars and champagne were given to the Netanyahu couple as gifts for special events such as holidays and birthdays – and this is due to the friendship between the billionaires and the Netanyahu couple.
During Kossack’s cross-examination, lawyer Amit Hadad presented to her that in the police she claimed that 85% of the total amount of champagne went to Sara Netanyahu, but in the main investigation she claimed that only 75 percent arrived. Kosseks said she stands by the 75% estimate.
Hadad presented to Cox that Packer purchased a total of 15 cases of champagne, and after the investigations began, 5 cases and two bottles remained at Packer’s house – and claimed that due to the calculation of the amount of bottles in each case, 35% of the bottles could not reach Sara Netanyahu at all. Haddad then presented to Cox that in her investigations she said that the champagne was not bought for Sara Netanyahu.
Afterwards, Kosseks claimed that Packer, guests and the house staff do not drink champagne, so that at least 65% of the remaining bottles went to Sarah Netanyahu. After Cox insisted on this, Hadad showed her pictures of Packer drinking champagne on several occasions, among others with the late President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres.
At the end of the day, Kosseks said that she could testify from personal knowledge about about 15 bottles of champagne and three boxes of cigars that were given to the Netanyahu couple.
Sarah Netanyahu. It is claimed that she received a ‘current supply line’ of champagne bottles (Avshalom Sassooni, Flash 90)
Cossacks’ testimony is weak, her desire to be the witness that will bring down Netanyahu’s “regime” will not materialize
Undoubtedly, Kossak’s credibility was damaged after she was tarnished with baseless hatred for the Netanyahu couple and Netanyahu’s desire to “overthrow the regime”.
Kossak’s version in the main investigation fits nicely with the main testimonies of Hadas Klein and Yonatan Hasson, but when you get into the cross-examinations you start to see inconsistencies.
In court, testimony is accepted from personal knowledge. Hearsay testimony is not admissible, except in exceptional cases that do not exist under the current circumstances. In the bottom line, Kossak’s testimony is only relevant regarding the Netanyahu couple’s use of the Packer home, 15 bottles of champagne and three boxes of cigars given over several years.
The attorney’s office believes that the testimonies of Kouseks, Klein and Hassan are integrated into each other and reinforce each other while being backed up by objective evidence. However, when Kouseks says that she can testify from personal knowledge about a limited number of favors, her testimony does not contribute too much to the 1000 case and it is not at all certain that it is necessary in light of the fact that the police did not bother to investigate Milchan’s housekeeper at Beit Yanai, who holds a similar position to the Cossacks.
One can only wonder why the prosecution brought to the witness stand a witness who can testify to such a limited number of favors, when on the other hand she says in her police investigations that she hates the Netanyahu couple and wishes to overthrow Netanyahu’s “regime”.
Did you find an error in the article? Does the content in the article violate copyrights that you own? Have you come across an inappropriate ad? Report to us