Defense trips up state’s witness in Holyland affair
Defense attorney Giorda Aderet sets up S.D. with a line of questions about whether Kollek was involved in the Holyland project.
Holyland Photo: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters
Defense attorney Giorda Aderet on Thursday tripped up the state witness in the
Holyland trial about Teddy Kollek’s involvement in the Holyland
Aderet represents Hillel Cherny, one of 15 defendants, including
former prime minister Ehud Olmert, and has been catching the state witness,
known only as S.D., under a gag order, in contradictions and memory lapses all
But this memory lapse was one of the most
Aderet set-up S.D. with a line of questions about whether Kollek
was involved in the Holyland project.
S.D. responded that Kollek had
basically had nothing to do with it, that they really had not spoken about it
and that Kollek had essentially sent an aid to deal with S.D. on the
Despite repeated detailed questions and opportunities to change
his story, S.D. stuck to his position that Kollek had basically nothing to do
with the project.
That was until Aderet sprung the trap, revealing to
S.D. that S.D. himself had in detail accused Kollek of being another personality
involved in the Holyland project.
According to S.D.’s statements to the
police, Kollek implied at a meeting in 1992 that he would support the project if
S.D. arranged for donations to the Israel Museum and some other
None of the donations would go directly to Kollek, but as
S.D. had never met with Kollek before, and Kollek brought up the issue in the
same conversation as their meeting in-person about the Holyland project, S.D.
said it was clear that Kollek was connecting the two
Subsequently, Kollek lost his attempt at reelection and so S.D.
did not actually make any of the donations.
However, from S.D.’s
statements to police, had Kollek won reelection, the donations would have been
made, as Kollek had already made implied commitments and sent a surrogate to
review the area where the Holyland project was due to be built.
the best he could to explain the memory lapse, but ultimately did not have much
to say beyond that “these facts don’t matter” and what matters is what he
remembers about all of the defendants actually in the case “taking bribes.”