His testimony in court was heard at the hearing on January 9, 2023. In his cross-examination, the witness reiterated that when he met the injured (the deceased), he was partially conscious and vague, with a pulse and breathing. He did not remember that he had suffered stabbings in the abdomen, but rather in the chest and neck, but that they were no longer bleeding. Listening to his breathing, a reduced air intake was felt into the right lung, and in combination with low blood oxygen assessment indices, it was decided to perform an air-chest test, using Nidel. The witness explained that MDA does not use a tracker (a wide chest drain inserted between the ribs 4-5), but rather a needle, and explained that it is a needle that is not actually inserted into the lung, but rather into the chest, to the space between the ribs 2-3. The witness agreed that in a healthy person, Niedel's action should not be life-threatening, even if it was done out of place or unnecessarily (p. 615). Later, he responded in a similar manner with regard to the action by means of Trocker, and raised a hypothesis regarding the deterioration of the defendant's condition, by stating that "the injury can aggravate itself, because it did not receive treatment" (p. 621, paras. 13-14). When the defense accused him that the treatment was done on the wrong side, the witness replied that he heard it for the first time, and when the defense insisted that if the right treatment had been given, it is very possible that the deceased would not have died, he replied that at all stages of the treatment it could be seen that the injured man's condition was getting worse and deteriorating, in view of the many stabbings from which he suffered. In response to the court's question, he replied that he inserted the needle only when they were in the ambulance, and that the journey to the hospital took 20 minutes. The witness did not remember on which side he performed the chest puncture, but replied that according to the medical report that was submitted, the deceased suffered from cessation of breathing in the left lung, and agreed that the more the puncture was performed on the right lung, the more it was his mistake (p. 662). According to him, during the entire trip, the deceased's condition deteriorated, and in addition to the pulmonary puncture, he was given a peripheral infusion (infusion) to inject fluids, and a breather with a blower (intubation) into the trachea, which initially improved his condition, but by the time he arrived at the hospital, the deceased had no pulse and no breathing. He answered in the negative, to the defense attorney's question as to whether he understood that most of the treatments he had done were wrong, although he agreed that, in retrospect, it would be better to perform a blood restoration treatment, which did not exist in the field, than treatment with shock fluids. As for the need for a tourniquet, he noted that already at the scene he noticed that the deceased had lost a significant amount of blood, but there was no point in using a tourniquet, because "the bleeding had apparently stopped because there might have been nothing left to bleed" (p. 667, para. 29).
- MDA paramedic, Ari Friedman, A.T. 40 - A memorandum was submitted that he had prepared - P/30A , as well as a video in respect of which his statement was given to the police (P/30).
In this context, it should be noted that at the beginning of the meeting on May 1, 2023, the prosecutor announced that in accordance with the accuser's decision, which was approved by the District Attorney, an investigation would be completed and a statement would be taken from the "main medic" who treated the deceased. This was in light of the fact that this was an argument that was raised during the course of the evidence management, and the accuser could not have foreseen it (inserting the needle into the wrong side).