The plaintiff further claims that the defendant tried to intimidate her as part of the correspondence between the parties, in order to dissuade her from filing a lawsuit.
It was also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant's testimony was evasive and inconsistent, and untrustworthy. The defendant knowingly concealed the WhatsApp correspondence with the defendant, and in response to the questionnaire, he replied that it was in the plaintiff's possession. However, the plaintiff deleted the correspondence after she was disappointed with the defendant's attitude, but the defendant continued to conceal the correspondence and evaded providing the information. Only after he heard that the correspondence was not in the plaintiff's possession did he give for the first time in his testimony a suppressed version, and claimed that he too deleted the correspondence after the end of the relationship between the parties.
The defendant presented several versions regarding the incident, in an attempt to reduce its intensity, and avoided providing a response in the form of a questionnaire. All this, after he admitted in his first version that there was a "jump" of the motorcycle while driving over the cattle crossing, but tried to avoid it throughout the procedure.
The defendant fabricated evidence by making a video reenactment of the incident, including descriptions from his mouth, but initially gave the video without the audio, which included a confession on his behalf about some of the circumstances of the incident. Due to the fact that the video, including the audio, was given only after hearing the testimonies and at the request of the plaintiff's counsel, it was not possible to confront the defendant with his words, and this should be attributed to him.
The video itself is filmed and edited in a tendentious manner, and yet in a number of cases contradicts the defendant's affidavit. Thus, for example, while the defendant stated that after the trip the parties went on a trip that included climbing rocks, in practice, the defendant demonstrated the trip when he suffered from a disability and was assisted by crutches, in a way that indicates that it was a short walk on an easy route, contradicting the defendant's claims.
- The defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not prove her claim and that her version should not be trusted.
First and foremost, the defendants referred to the "golden eye" - the initial medical documentation recorded at the emergency center, which does not mention the incident even a hint, in a way that shows that it is a fabricated version.