Netanyahu Trial: Defense Questions Identical Signatures on Indictments

The signatures on the original and amended indictments against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became a central focus of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's testimony at the Jerusalem District Court on Monday.

Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Hadad, presented Mandelblit with the signatures appearing on both documents, arguing that they were identical and had been copied from the original indictment onto the amended version.

Hadad pointed to the striking similarities between the signatures, including an ink smudge on the first letter, which he argued indicated that the documents had not been signed separately.

“Someone copied your signature from the original indictment. Not only yours, but those of everyone involved, and pasted them onto the amended indictment. And you don't remember this event,” Hadad told Mandelblit.

When asked whether he had authorized anyone else to sign on his behalf, Mandelblit said he had not. However, he maintained that he had personally reviewed and approved the amended indictment.

“I remember reading and approving the amended indictment,” he said.

Mandelblit acknowledged that he could not recall physically signing the amended document but insisted that he had approved its contents.

He further argued that even if his signature had been copied from an earlier document, this would not necessarily invalidate his authorization.

“Even if someone placed my signature there, that also meets the requirement. To meet the requirement, the consent has to be given verbally. That's what I'm saying.”

The questioning also addressed Case 2000, which concerns allegations involving Netanyahu, Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon (Noni) Mozes, and discussions about favorable media coverage in exchange for legislation that could restrict the competing newspaper Israel Hayom.

Hadad questioned Mandelblit about whether he had authorized investigators to examine Netanyahu's connections with Israel Hayom as part of the investigation.

“To the best of my recollection, that's correct. I don't think there was authorization for that,” Mandelblit responded.

He added that the issue had been discussed previously and that the passage of time made it difficult for him to recall the details with certainty.

Meanwhile, the judges ruled that Hadad would not be permitted to question Mandelblit about investigative measures carried out after authorization had been granted to open the investigation.

Following that decision, Hadad announced that he expected to conclude his cross-examination of Mandelblit on Tuesday.

An attorney representing Mozes also requested an additional day to question the former attorney general.