In the context of the case, it should be emphasized that beyond the fact that the time at which the witness called the MDA hotline reflects the reality (with a deviation of a few minutes), this is a non-controversial issue that is on the sidelines, when it is not at all clear what the witness's interest is in concealing or lying about it. Indeed, the witness contradicted himself in his answers, and it is not impossible that, as the defense attorney assessed, the witness did not want the interrogation to be taken away from him, and therefore claimed that the phone was broken, and later became entangled in his answers. This conduct, even though it leads the court to exercise extreme caution, does not teach that his version regarding the deceased's run over is false.
As to the claim that the witness contradicted himself in relation to the noise of the engine, contrary to what is claimed, his answer in his second interrogation (which is different from his answer in the first interrogation in which he claimed that he did not hear the engine) does not indicate the tendency of exaggeration in his second interrogation, the purpose of which is to convince that the defendant accelerated before being run over. On the contrary, the description of the witness in his second interrogation according to which "he gave some gas and I heard the noise because the engine is large..." is more consistent with the person who explains that he was able to hear the noise of the engine, even though there was no acceleration except because of the size of the engine. Had the witness sought to exaggerate and blacken the defendant, it would have been easy for him to point out that even after the ramming, the noise of the engine was of high intensity, and one that is consistent with a strong press of the gas pedal. The court also refrained from claiming that he heard the "growl" of the engine, prior to the injury to the deceased.
The defense argued that the location of the injury to the deceased, according to Jaudat's version, contradicts the location of the blood stains, which indicate that the injury occurred even before the bumper (a point marked 11 in the probe diagram marked P/37A). In this regard, although the first blood stain is an indication of the place of impact, this is not unequivocal, and as will be detailed below, Examiner Partush was of the opinion that in light of the characteristics of the blood stains, it is not possible to know whether and how the deceased was moved, and as a result, those spots were created (and therefore he did not determine that this was the point of impact).