Prosecutors in the Holyland trial have justifiably claimed that the preponderance of solid evidence has pretty much established their case against former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; they indeed have a very good chance of convincing Judge David Rozen that Olmert is guilty. Lead prosecutor Liat Ben-Ari and her colleague Jonathan Tadmor are confident they do not need to call Olmert's former bureau chief Shula Zaken to the stand and have no use for the incriminating information she allegedly has on him. But the Holyland Trial has the big shadow of Olmert's other corruption trial hanging over it. That trial concluded in 2012 with a perplexing verdict that is currently being appealed by the state at the Supreme Court. Any levelheaded individual would have concluded that American businessman Morris Talansky's cash-stuffed envelopes resulted in a quid pro quo on the part of Olmert (the Talansky affair) and that the former premier was involved in his bureau's fraudulent use of frequent flyer points (the Rishon Tours affair). But the judges in the Jerusalem courthouse bent over backwards just so they could find a way to acquit Olmert on those counts. The judges were like the Israelites who could not be bothered with the inconvenient truths sounded by the prophets, they were like those "that have eyes, and see not, that have ears, and hear not" (Jeremiah 5:21). Two days ago I had a strong urge to be a fly on the wall in the judges' chambers. I wanted to see how they reacted when Channel 2 and Channel 1 aired Zaken's new revelations, which echoed what she has recently told police (as part of her effort to strike a plea bargain.) She claimed Olmert used Talansky's cash for tuxedos, cigars and for his children's tuition. She said she was under his explicit orders to run double-billing scheme in the Rishon Tours affair. This was all too obvious during the trial but was somehow lost on the judges. Now it was reinforced, although anytime a potential state witness comes out with new details, caution is in order. The allegation that Olmert had asked the late state witness Shmuel Dechner to lend Zaken money for a new home was first aired in 2009. Although the statute of limitations on such a crime may have expired, it can nevertheless help prosecutors demonstrate a pattern of behavior. The state routinely calls people to the stand to elaborate on crimes that are no longer indictable. During former President Moshe Katsav's trial, the state had several women take the stand to testify about alleged sexual crimes he carried out when they were his subordinates. Prosecutors followed this path during the Holyland trial. The charges against Olmert were reinforced by what Zaken told the police last week, when she essentially confirmed Dechner's claim that Olmert wanted him to send funds to his brother Yossi (and in exchange facilitated Dechner's grandiose real estate project). By showing this pattern of behavior, the state can tighten the noose and make a stronger case that Olmert had indeed accepted bribes. But does the state have enough evidence to convict Olmert even without Zaken testifying about what she really knows? Tel Aviv District Judge David Rozen will decide. Why did State Attorney Shai Nitzan pass up the opportunity to have her testify on the new information as part of a plea bargain? Has he become a disciple of Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and the kid-glove approach he has adopted toward white-collar offenders? Zaken's attorney Ofer Bartal correctly stated that the new information she provided police did not contradict her earlier, self-incriminating, testimony in court. Zaken only provided complementary, yet essential information that was germane to the Holyland trial and to the other trial. Any level-headed individual would have already realized who Olmert is, except that Olmert has launched a PR campaign to mislead large segments of the public and has had them believe Zaken is lying. The public has a right to know whether there are untold facts surrounding Olmert's efforts to privatize Bank Leumi and the questionable purchase of his Jerusalem home (the state chose not to press charges in both cases). The public deserves an explanation as to why Zaken got cold feet when she was offered a plea bargain some two years ago. I expected Nitzan to steer clear of the path Weinstein has taken on white-collar crimes. I still hope he subscribes to the slogan "let Shula talk."
