State Prosecutor's claim investigation against Nir Hefetz is legitimate

Comments from state prosecutor’s office comes amid allegations of contradictions in Hefetz’s testimony after release of transcripts by Channel 12

Former Netanyahu aide Nir Hefetz (photo credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/MAARIV)
Former Netanyahu aide Nir Hefetz
The comments from the state prosecutor’s office came following the publishing of transcripts by Channel 12 of Nir Hefetz’s interrogation. Despite the comments, the prosecutor's office said  that “the testimony of Nir Hafetz is solid and reliable.”
Channel 12 news published transcripts from the interrogation of Nir Hefetz, a former associate of Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu and state witness in Case 4000, on Monday night that show that he changed his version of the events after signing the state witness deal
According to the report Hefetz said the day after his signing that "I'm confused with myself what I remember from the interrogation and what I really remember, they mix together." On another occasion, Hefetz claimed "memory isn't my strong suit. I'm bad with long term [memory], I'll remember a lot now but six months from now I'll forget."
According to the report, Hefetz was in holding for 15 straight days, one of the longest stays in Israeli history for a white collar crime. The pressure was on him to recall the events and sign the deal. Throughout the entire process he complained about flea bites, but got no treatment.
Hefetz: "Yaniv, treat me. I'm losing my mind from the itching, I'm going insane. 
Interrogator: "What do you want me to do? It's not life-threatening. Open a [shirt] button, blow on it. Is staying silent really worth all the itching, the mess, the suffering and the lack of sleep? You know what I find funny? That the thing bothering you is the rash on your body and not everything you're being told. We're talking dozens of bites. It's take more than a few days, but it's still a bite."
I: "What's important to me is that you understand, if you haven't yet, that we know everything. And we also know how to, very quickly, analyze situations, understand exactly who you are, what you are, who you surround yourself with and who is in your inner circle, and everything you could possibly check, we will check. One at a time, very meticulously. We won't leave a single stone unturned. We're gathering evidence against you, and people are talking. And you're at the station, the train is about to leave, the doors are about to close. There are people who have entered the train already, and there are those who are still deciding. What happens to those who remain undecided?"
While signing the witness protection deal, Hefetz promised that he would be able to tie Netanyahu to the Bezeq-Yes deal by describing a three-way meeting between him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Elovich.
H: "I'm shocked that I remember."
I: "You remember because you had two weeks to focus solely on it."
H: "You know what? Yeah. I didn't know that about the human brain."
I: "It can identify agendas, the human brain."
H: "I'm certain it was only a few days before the election. Netanyahu knew that I was coming on election business, he had no idea about this thing."
Furthermore, according to the report, phone tracking evidence for a three-way meeting between them during the elections doesn't exist. The only date in which phone tracking puts them in the same place is four months before the election, November 28, 2014.
Five months after his interrogation, after it turns out his initial testimony was inaccurate, Hefetz was invited again to try to fix his version. He arrived full of good intentions, but that only complicated things further.
H: "It could be a few days immediately after the election. Why? Because at that time I was on the coalition's negotiating team, so I was all over Jerusalem. I remember the meeting having a relaxed mood, so it makes sense to me that it could be from after the election. I asked David Sheran for the meeting."
The issue becomes problematic when you consider that during the meeting, there were no negotiations, and no Sheran - who was not working at the PM's office at the time. After that, the transcript reads "suspect and interrogator leave the room." When they come back and the documentation renews, Hefetz suddenly says "Let's say it was November 28th, 2014." After two failed guesses and following an un-recorded meeting with interrogators, Hefetz gives the exact date - and finds his way into the indictment.
The report also claims that Hefetz's memory issues continued when interrogators spoke of the firing of Communications Ministry Director Avi Berger, which the indictment charge was allegedly done at the direction of Elovich. "Elovich never sent me to talk about it with Bibi," Hefetz stated. "I never spoke with Bibi about Berger's termination, not before, not after. Never. To the best of my knowledge, he was fired for having zero contact with the prime minister."
The day after that, Hefetz recalled something differently:
I: "Yesterday you said that you didn't speak to Bibi about firing Berger. Yet today you claim you did. Please explain this gap."
H: "During the interrogation... Now, in one of the questions you asked me, it flashed in my memory. But... it flashed in sort of a general sense."
Similar memory issues occurred when Hefetz was asked if Netanyahu had sent him to to order the Ministry Communications Director to slow the rate of declining Bezeq prices, something that would help Elovich.
H: "I don't remember a meeting where I told him to slow down. I don't remember. There's no way I'll remember."
I: "About anything."
H: "Right now, about anything, and that's the truth."
The following day, that changed:
I: "So regarding the meeting, yesterday you didn't remember and today you did. What made you remember? Yesterday you only remembered one meeting."
H: "I remember Momo being accurate."
The Ministry of Justice released a response to the story, saying "We have no intention of holding a hearing in the media. The attorney general never approved any of the aforementioned actions in the query. I should be made clear that nothing of what was said was intended to corroborate the validity of the claims in the query."