The state struck a plea bargain with former president Moshe Katsav because the evidence had eroded so seriously that the chances of conviction had become borderline, sources in the State Prosecutor's Office said Thursday.

The sources added that they realized that Katsav had had an intimate relationship with A., who worked for him in the President's Residence, but the evidence indicated that it was consensual.

In its official response to several petitions against the plea bargain, the prosecution told the High Court of Justice Thursday that difficulties in proving the allegations included in the draft indictment were the reason for the deal. It also said that at the hearing conducted by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Katsav's attorneys presented new information that weakened the evidence.

	Advertisement

"This was not an acrobatic turnabout or a wild and baseless U-turn, but rather an evolutionary process of continual erosion during months of dealing with the case," said the response, which included 152 clauses.

After the hearing, the sources said, Mazuz had to decide whether to go ahead and prosecute a case where numerous problems made conviction uncertain, and which would take a long time even if a conviction were obtained. Under these circumstances, he found himself in a dilemma: On one hand, a trial might end in an acquittal, but on the other, closing a case with such serious charges, even if the evidence was borderline, would be problematic.

At that point, the state was still leaning toward an indictment, but then the idea of a plea bargain was placed on the table. It was "bare-bones," but it would lead to Katsav's immediate conviction on nontrivial charges. The plea bargain option thus seemed better than either of the other two possibilities.