Jaudat was asked about what he had said during the interrogation about the noise of the Dodge's engine, and confirmed that he had not heard the engine until the accident, but "when he approached me, yes." The witness was asked about the apparent contradictions that arise between his testimony and what he had told the police on the matter, and he replied: "What I saw, I said."
In response to the question of how he knew that the defendant had gone to his family in Yattir after the accident, he replied, "I heard maybe from the company." He did not speak to Tawfiq after that. When asked how he understood that there was a problem between the deceased and the defendant, he answered: "Everyone was talking when we were near Soroka... His whole family." The witness confronted the fact that the deceased had a fracture in his left thigh, which is consistent with crossing a road in the opposite direction from the one he described, and answered: "What I saw, is that his whole body is broken, and I don't see (Z.L.) wanting to tell you with my hand or chest, I don't know, how I lifted him up, his whole body was broken... "; " Maybe when he got on the wheel"; No, he was on the right side" (p. 228).
Evaluation of Jawdat's version:
We are of the opinion that Jawdat testified about things that he saw and perceived with his senses, and we give credence to his version, and all the more so to the main points of his version. We determine this precisely, without ignoring contradictions and doubts in his version, since most of them are explained by the witness, some of them are insignificant, and some of them are found in the margins. More importantly, the witness's version is supported by the findings at the scene as well as by the corroborations that find expression in the defendant's version, and what is the point of things?
The witness is the neighbor of the deceased and a distant family member of the deceased (the grandfather of the deceased and the father of the witness, brothers). This closeness, in and of itself, does not indicate that the witness's version is biased in the first place, and we will add that the witness, according to him, is also a distant family member of the accused. The defendant's home is not far from the witness's home, as we learn from the various photographs and videos, so that they can certainly be defined as those who live in close proximity to each other and in the same neighborhood.