Moreover, the defendant's statement, according to which his brother Karim told him during the ramming, "Be careful, there is a child on the left side and then I hit him..." are a clear situation of "res gesta", i.e., "testimony about a statement made at the time when an offense was allegedly committed or near his face... and the statement is directly related to the fact that belongs to the matter" See section 9 of the Evidence Ordinance (further reference regarding the direction of the deceased's crossing in connection with the fracture of the deceased's left femur will be made in the chapter dealing with the opinion of a defense expert).
Reinforcement for Jaudat's version of the defendant's statement can be found not only in the question of the direction of the crossing, but also in the unusual "zig-zag" movement that he described. This is what the defendant answered when asked about the braking of the vehicle: "Q: When did the vehicle stop, after how long and after how long? A: I pressed the brakes and turned the steering wheel to the right and left and did not stop... after a few meters it stopped" (P/8, p. 10). It is not clear why the defendant should tilt the steering wheel to the right and left in order to stop the vehicle, and more than this should be seen as an explanation that the vehicle did not brake, it should be seen as an explanation that the vehicle did not brake, this should strengthen Jaudat's version that the defendant's driving after turning right was not in a straight line. In fact, the defense expert, as part of his opinion and as a possible explanation for the presence of the deceased's blood on the right rear tire, also claimed that the vehicle had swerved after turning right (although according to him, this was an attempt to avoid harming the deceased). To this, it should be added that Jaudat's description of getting on the left sidewalk and tilting the vehicle back onto the road towards the deceased, who tried to evade and went down to the road (who then ran him over), is more consistent with the fact that the place of impact is in the left lane (opposite) in the direction of the defendant's travel. (And as noted, the defense expert also placed the impact in the opposite lane to that of the defendant).