"You're right, Haddad, I remember": Mandelblit's revelation on Case 4,000

During Avichai Mandelblit's testimony in the Netanyahu trial, the former attorney general admitted that the investigation into Case 4,000 initially began with suspicion of 'favorable coverage' and only later the term 'unusual responsiveness' was formulated. Defense attorney Amit Haddad argued that this constitutes a substantive change that was not properly approved.

At the Jerusalem District Court today (Monday), the former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit gave his direct testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Haddad, sought to clarify whether Mandelblit had authorized in real time an investigation into suspicion of 'unusual responsiveness' in coverage on the Walla website. Mandelblit initially struggled to recall when the term came into use, and eventually admitted that the suspicion was initially described as 'favorable coverage,' and only at a later stage was the definition of 'unusual responsiveness' formulated. Haddad argued that Mandelblit had only authorized an investigation into 'favorable coverage,' not the later term. Mandelblit explained that the essence of the suspicion remained the same over time. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh objected to some of the questions. The article highlights the legal significance of the linguistic shift for Netanyahu's defense.