ANALYSIS: Evidence is key in Holyland case, not spins

We must acknowledge the truth: The average citizen who is not an expert in how the police work with a state's witness, is not familiar with what goes on behind closed doors among some media agencies and who is not aware of the ease with which defendants can solicit help from pliable media personalities, may end up believing that prosecutors have framed the defendants in the Holyland case and charged them with false accusations just to obtain their downfall.

The average citizen who watched a television program on Friday about the state's witness known as "S" surely asks himself why prosecutors have based their case on a person who has linked himself to things that never happened; a shady businessman who does not hold honesty in high esteem. Is that their diamond in the rough?

The question is reasonable, at least to the average citizen, because some media personalities have succeeded in sewing confusion. It happened in the Haim Ramon case, when some reporters gave the impression that there was no case and no conviction. It happened in the case of Aryeh Deri, when supportive reporters defended him. It happened in the case of Ehud Olmert and the envelopes filled with cash. And it will apparently happen again in the Holyland case. The public will be flooded with tendentious reports that don't reflect the real truth of the matter.

A moment before those media outlets begin to plant within the public a feeling that the Holyland case is not what it was touted as being, here is a brief guide to reading the newspapers and filtering reports that are written or broadcast, in the spirit of "don't buy everything you hear or read in the media."

1. A state witness is a partner to a crime. He or she is a criminal who has decided to talk — sometimes due to what police call "an argument among criminals." We are not talking about a whistle-blower, a righteous person or a person whose integrity motivated him to open his mouth. There is no such claim.

2. A large number of state witnesses were found to be at least partially unreliable in their testimonies, but the defendants were convicted nonetheless and sentenced to prison terms, as was the case for example with former Minister Shlomo Benizri. Why does this happen? Because the trial judge has the right to consider the witness reliable for some of his statements and unreliable for others. In which instances does he choose to consider the witness reliable? In instances in which the testimony is supported by irrefutable documents, audio clips or other supportive evidence.

3. There is a huge difference between lies stated outside a police investigation and the court and lies stated within the framework of a criminal investigation and which constitute the core of an indictment. When a witness swears to tell the truth and fails to do so in relation to a fundamental issue in the case, a problem may arise. That is why the Holyland case is based on the testimony of "S" only when his statements were backed by solid evidence.

For example, "S" said during his testimony that he delivered large sums of money to bribe former Jerusalem city engineer Uri Shetrit, who until he accepted the money refused to approve the Holyland construction plan. "S" mentioned sums that accumulated to 1.4 million shekels ($358,000) and described how and when he transferred the money. His testimony was supported among other things by checks that confirmed the amounts. His testimony relating to a bribe given to Olmert's former bureau chief Shula Zaken was also verified by checks, cash and even gifts Zaken admitted receiving. In all, she was said to have received 150,000 shekels ($38,000).

So what weight does false testimony carry outside the framework of an investigation or concerning a non-critical issue during an investigation? Why doesn't the public have the right to receive this simple explanation and be exposed to perhaps additional solid evidence — evidence that cannot simply be discarded by any campaign for the defense-

Actually, the public does have the right and we can only hope that in the end it will receive the explanation. We should hope that someone will eventually remind certain reporters of a simple fact: "S" is one of the defendants in the case as well. He was their friend and confidant until he turned to the police.

Only then did they pull out their knives and call him a "crook" and a "fabricator." Only then did this man, previously considered a financial wizard and entrepreneurial genius who was at the top of his field, become a "liar" and a "criminal." It was only then that private investigators began to collect "incriminating" material against him from the time he began kindergarten.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו