On the basis of the data presented above, there is no escaping the conclusion that all of the Municipality's videos from the morning hours, on which the viewing report P/45 relied, was lost without the ability to recover due to a negligent omission on the part of the investigation team. The question of exactly how the videos were lost is irrelevant, whether it was the investigator Ibrahim who forgot the hard drive in his room in Eilat, whether the investigator of one or another stopped by not copying the files to the designated server before the hard drive was put in the unit's cabinet, or whether it was the police officer who formatted the hard drive without verifying that the files were copied and backed up. The main thing is that the loss is entirely rooted in the faulty conduct of the investigative unit, which was negligent in its role and did not fulfill its duty, even if out of a temporary failure and not out of malice or deliberate intent, to present the raw videos before the defense and before the court.
On the basis of the above, the defense initially petitioned not to accept the viewing report P/45 as evidence, since it is auxiliary evidence, which cannot be a substitute for the source evidence - the videos themselves, and in this context see the exchange at pp. 250-256 of the said transcript. After hearing the summary of the arguments of the parties, we instructed that the observation report be accepted as evidence and that the defense would be entitled, to the extent it saw fit, to re-raise its arguments, both with regard to the admissibility itself and with regard to the weight of the evidence, in the framework of the summaries. A perusal of the defense's summaries shows that in practice it abandoned all of its arguments on this issue, and it no further raises reservations regarding the admissibility of the report or its weight. I will note that this position is not an accidental omission or an unintentional disregard, since in fact the defense no longer disputes the joint activity of Mitsubishi and Toyota towards the deceased, and therefore it also found no reason to disagree with the timings and routes of the vehicles in the morning hours in the vicinity of the deceased's home.