A: Therefore...
Q: Show me which one, take me.
A: Nice.
Q: Take me to him.
A: OK
[....]
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: Okay, but it shows you that what you wrote you wrote in the original opinion and you wrote it based on what you had in front of you and based on it, He wants to see the foundations in the first opinionBecause when you did the first one, you didn't expect or expected you to submit a supplement as well. Submission of an Opinion. At first, he wants to see all the basis for the question he is asking.
A: The foundation is my knowledge, which also appeared In the Kishon Trial Before, and I wrote this years ago.
[....]
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: ... And what I have in front of me is the first and second opinions, but he asks you about the first one you wrote, direct him to everything you say, that's what he wants.
A: I have to go through and check, But I repeat earlier that what I didn't mention, because I didn't mention it, because I didn't see the importance of noting it at the time, is what I knew before.
Q: Let's talk about what you did mention.
A: Now, no, so I say...
Q: So evacuate. Enough, really. I asked a question. I ask you to say if you can answer it or say you can't answer it so okay, that's also an answer.
A: I don't know what I need to answer here. I wrote my own opinion according to my opinion, that's all.
(In detail, pp. 417-418).
- Lin testified, among other things, in relation to his first opinion that "...The basis is my knowledge, which also appeared in the Kishon trial earlier, and I wrote it years ago" (page 417, lines 30-31). At the end of his interrogation on this point, the expert clarified that what was said in his first opinion – the original – he based it on "...It's based on, so I repeat it based on my knowledge." (page 425, lines 5-8) and also about the scholar Luddish (page 424, lines 4-5) [see at length on pages 417-425].
- As a rule, it should be clarified that Prof. Lin confirmed in his cross-examination that the theory presented in his opinion in the proceeding here is identical to the theory he presented in the framework of the fishermen's lawsuit (in Haifa), in which he also testified as an expert on behalf of the plaintiffs (see, for example, his testimony at p. 749, lines 5-18 and on page 754, lines 28-34).
- Lin was asked and answered, among other things, as follows:
Q: ....The Cookie Model, if I understood correctly this passage that you are talking about Prospective That's one thing Verretrospectively That's another thing. In other words, on the retrospective question, you know how to say, there is a very high probability of the prospective matter, you say it's already things that depend on all kinds of factors, tests, other research. So if I understand your words correctly, then the cookie model that... The cookie model, we know what that means, yes?