Adv. Shashi Gaz, a criminal law expert, spoke today (Wednesday) with Yinon Magal and Ben Caspit on 103FM about the severe blow suffered by the State Attorney’s Office last night with the rejection of the request to amend the indictment against Netanyahu in the 4000 case, and explained the dramatic meaning behind the rejection: ” Without Pilber’s pillar, the whole building would collapse. The prosecution is making mistake after mistake. ”
Attorney Gaz opened by saying that “Attorney General Mandelblit said ‘if it were not for Shlomo Pilber, I would not have filed an indictment for 4000’, and there is no more Shlomo Pilber. It is impossible to take one word from Shlomo Pilber, leave all the general statements. This meeting is the most important thing in this case. True, bribery can always be proven, but if you hear that the bribe case is based solely on Shlomo Pilber, then who will you believe? To Pilber’s first testimony? To his second testimony? “
He added: “The prosecution is making mistake here after mistake. You can not figure out who is handling this case. The mistake is twofold, the first mistake is actually filing the indictment. When you write a date, you need to know you have to prove the date. Why you bind the “On the date? Why did the prosecution sandal itself? The date was wrong and then they made a second mistake, what are you submitting a correction request for? You have section 184, say in the summaries.”
Gaz added that “Pilber does not want to break the plea deal, he will always say ‘there was a meeting’, because if he says ‘there was no meeting’, at that moment he will go to trial, at that moment he will be put on trial.”
In response, Caspit noted: “All the behavior of the person who testifies in confrontations with Kamir and everyone else, he says, ‘I acted like a rag,’ ‘I was your rag,’ that is, why? The judges will probably say he had an order. After all, Pilber did not. “He received a shekel, so why did he behave like that? That’s what the judges will ask themselves.”
Gaz replied: “You yourself have acquitted him now because you are saying ‘he probably had a directive’. Do you know what ‘probably’ is in a criminal trial? In a criminal trial it is not thoughts or imagination or just logic, you need evidence, facts. You bring up “He’s the foundation of the building, he’s the conviction pillar, everything else you’re talking about, the pieces of evidence, it’s a balcony, it’s rooms in the building, but without the pillar, this building collapses.
He added: “If I were Bibi’s defense attorney, I would still be scared, but I’m telling you, I’m looking at this building and it’s collapsing. “That will not be enough for a conviction. The court should be under the impression that Netanyahu knew.”
On the accusation of breach of trust, Gaz said: “Here I am much more careful. They received a severe blow, but I would not speak yet in terms of collapse. It is true that on the face of it, according to the indictment, the breach of trust is also based on Pilber, There probably will not be a breach of trust, but here, I do not care because I do not know if they have other things that will prove the breach of trust. What’s wrong with them? “
Asked how he thinks the trial will end, Gaz said: “I still think it will end in a plea deal, only this time it will be difficult to know who is courting whom. “Did the prosecution know what Pilber was going to say and were afraid of him, so there was a plea deal? Because then everyone was talking about the fact that the one who was afraid was Netanyahu, and today I’m not so sure who the coward was in the story.”
Why did you think before the trial that if you were Netanyahu’s lawyer you would still be scared?
“Because it’s awfully easy to win radio and television. It’s awfully easy to be a commentator and explain. We live in a country that has 2% credits. You have 3 indictments here.”
Assisted in the preparation of the article: Amitai Duak, 103fm