According to his very testimony, it was on the face of it, detailed, chronologically, and included many details, some of them unique, both in relation to the car-ramming itself and in relation to the circumstances that preceded and followed it. The witness's statements to the police were submitted for our review for the purpose of proving contradictions, and an examination of them shows that there should be no mention of glaring changes or contradictions between what he gave to the police and his testimony before us.
From the outset, Jaudat does not begin the description of the vehicular attack by seeing the deceased on the left side of the street (in relation to the direction of the defendant's travel) without knowing where he had been before, but rather begins with a description according to which he heard shouting in the street, he noticed the deceased instructing his mother to go back into their home, entered after her and later left his house. This description indicates that the deceased's position on the left side - a fact that was at the heart of the dispute between the parties - is connected to an earlier situation that places him at the entrance to the deceased's house, which is located on the left side in the direction of the defendant's travel.
It should also be said in this context that the defendant never claimed that the deceased crossed the road from right to left, so that we are not in a situation in which Jawdat, in the course of his desire to incriminate the defendant (as the defense claims), deliberately gives the opposite version of the defendant's version of the deceased's location (after he reached his ears prior to his interrogation). As will be expanded below, the claim regarding crossing from right to left, and hence making the accident inevitable, arose only at the end of the defense's case, so that at the time Jawdat gave his version, it did not matter much to him which side of the road the deceased was standing on before the defendant chased him with the dodge.