Isn’t there a difference between whether he was injured in an accident against his will and by chance, or whether he knowingly caused it himself precisely in order to avoid publication of the investigation?
If he were going to recover soon, then delaying it really wouldn’t matter, but in another half year nothing significant will change except the loss of public focus. His condition will remain problematic or he’ll die. Publishing it after his death is less deterrent and less significant than publishing it during his lifetime, to disgrace him in every way possible.

The argument about harming the family isn’t clear to me—what does that have to do with his current medical condition? The idea of weakening the doctors’ hands sounds dubious to me in a situation where even terrorists are admitted for treatment and doctors get used to separating things. And if their hands are weakened, so what? So this vermin won’t get the ideal treatment, big deal. I won’t lose sleep if terrorists also don’t receive optimal medical care.

I’ve explained everything and don’t see any need to add. There is something bad about dancing on the blood, and there is no urgency in publication except gut-level agitation. And if after some time the public won’t pay attention—then that’s the public’s fault and its problem.

With God’s help, Second Passover 5781

Journalistic publication of an affair that is supposed to be clarified in a police investigation and later in court initially gives the impression of an attempt to influence the court by creating judgment and conviction through the press. That is why the law prohibits publications liable to bias the court’s opinion (what is called “sub judice”).

There are two reasons that could have required publication of the investigation: (a) in a case where the law-enforcement authorities are dragging their feet in handling the affair (see the case of the late Ahuvia Sandak); (b) in order to encourage additional witnesses to testify in the matter.

In the present case, reason (a) has already become unnecessary, since a new investigation has already been opened in the National Fraud Investigation Unit, and complainants could have been referred there. Reason (b) also became unnecessary for the same reason, since additional complainants who knew that a new investigation had been opened by that unit could have turned there.

There is also something puzzling about the unit: according to what was published, they stationed observers opposite Meshi-Zahav’s house in order to arrest him on Sunday. Why? After all, he had approached them on his own initiative several weeks earlier in order to be questioned by them. Was a media-covered arrest planned in order to impress the press?

And most puzzling of all: someone circulated a fake suicide letter in which Meshi-Zahav supposedly admits his guilt. And here the question is asked: (a) if there is solid testimony of his guilt, why is there any need to forge a “confession by the defendant”? (b) if someone is willing to forge a suicide letter, is he not also suspect of witness tampering?

In short: it is possible that the coin has several sides, and it is not proper to decide without carefully examining all the sides.

Regards, Avishai Lipman Sosnovitzki Dehari

Regarding claims that were raised that in the past the police did not properly investigate the complaints against Meshi-Zahav—it would be worthwhile to refer the complainants also to the Police Internal Investigations Department so they can investigate the police conduct in the past.

Regards, ELSD

Avishai,
As someone who demands of others to examine things before forming an opinion, did you examine the question of the forged letter? Is it already a known fact that the letter is forged? I haven’t seen that, but maybe I missed it. And even if it is forged, you’re hinting that it was the police. Did you check that too?

To Rabbi M. D. A.—greetings,

On the contrary. The police found in Meshi-Zahav’s home a suicide letter in which he rejects the accusations. The forged letter in which he supposedly admits guilt was published on social media. See the articles on the subject on Channel 7.

I am not hinting; I am saying it explicitly. The matter needs to be investigated by authorized investigative bodies—both the claims against Meshi-Zahav and the claims that police officers in the past covered for him. Complaints against him should be directed to investigation by the National Fraud Investigation Unit, and complaints regarding improper handling by police officers in the past should be directed to the Police Internal Investigations Department.

One must be careful about trial by media. The publication was intended to stir the authorities to investigate and the witnesses to complain. Once that goal has been achieved, there is no need for the continued media circus.

Regards, ELSD

Paragraph 2, line 2
… that police officers in the past covered for him. Complaints…

Another issue that investigative authorities will need to clarify is the claims about threats and attempted extortion, according to Meshi-Zahav, in the period before publication of the investigation. See the article “Senior ZAKA official: They explicitly threatened Meshi-Zahav: We will bury you and destroy your family,” on the Maariv website.

Regards, ELSD