The unfolding drama is simply unprecedented. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's erstwhile friend and bureau chief, Shula Zaken, has suddenly come out with new information, just days before the verdict is read in the Holyland trial, where both are codefendants over the bribes they allegedly took while Olmert was Jerusalem mayor and cabinet minister. She claims she has information showing Olmert tried to obstruct justice. What did she offer investigators? Did she implicate Olmert as the black raven who allegedly tried to dissuade her from signing the plea bargain that her lawyers had hammered out? Did her defense team sign a semiofficial plea bargain about a month ago? On Wednesday, Channel 2 reporter Amit Segal recalled how her son, Nadav, had foreshadowed the release of new information through a post to his Facebook profile several weeks ago. In it, he wrote that Olmert, despite the ongoing legal proceedings, had approached Zaken privately without authorization. Zaken's son also gave the impression that he had recorded Olmert's conversation with him and Zaken on tape. Did he? That is still a mystery. A complacent Olmert essentially lost control of the situation. He had no choice in the face of the mounting evidence against him, making an Olmert-Zaken clash inevitable. There was no doubt that tainted money was sent in Olmert's and Zaken's direction, it was just a matter of figuring out who was the intended recipient. The trial was at a crossroads. Olmert tried to play down Zaken's new information on Thursday by rehashing the same old arguments he has been using throughout the trial, saying it was all in her head. He has already prepared an excuse to deflect (possible) conviction: the hostile atmosphere with which he has had to contend. It was Zaken who offered to come forward with new information; the state did not ask for it. In fact, prosecutors almost turned her down because they figured they had enough evidence to convict her and Olmert. Zaken's lawyers in the Holyland trial, hired by the state, did what they were supposed to do when they tried to minimize the damage to their client. During her previous trials, it was Olmert's friend (or should I say, friends), who paid for her legal counsel. This could have influenced her decision not to testify against her former boss during that trial; the black raven won. There are several scenarios for how this case unfolds: • Zaken could be asked to testify again, this time as a witness rather than a defendant; she would subsequently be cross-examined. Judge David Rozen could forgo that option if he believes he has enough evidentiary material to make a ruling. • Zaken could be allowed to testify after the verdict is read but before the sentencing. She would be asked to reveal everything she knows; to present new facts. She could ask for a reduced sentence, citing the fact that she will have shared valuable and credible information that would once and for all debunk the myth that Olmert was a great leader. • Zaken could be summoned by police to testify about the new information she has on Olmert's alleged obstruction of justice. The state would return the favor by asking the court to exercise leniency when her sentencing comes up. As the Bible says, "Cast your bread upon the waters" (Ecclesiastes 11:1). This would be a leap of faith on the part of Zaken. If this were a television legal drama, critics would have scoffed at the various twists, mocking the creators for having an over-the-top imagination.
