It is not superfluous to add that in contrast to a police examiner who is required to determine the exact location of the impact for the purpose of reconstructing the accident and the work of the examiners, this is not the case with regard to eyewitnesses whose testimony regarding the location of vehicles and pedestrians is based solely on an assessment. It therefore follows that even if Jaudat located the impact point a few meters after the location of the first blood stain, it should not be learned that his testimony in this matter is second-hand, or that it is not reliable.
As to the claim that the witness stated in his interrogation of 26 September 2023 that he was alone at the scene and concealed the existence of others who were at the scene, contrary to his testimony in court (see paragraphs 54-63 of the summaries), an examination of the said statement shows that this claim is inaccurate, since immediately after the witness replied to the police interrogator that he was alone in the street, he explicitly stated that the children were in the street with him: "Q: Was there anyone other than you, was there anyone who saw the incident? A: No, I was alone in the street. I heard a mess of the children and went out to shout at them, and at that time the Dodge came in and made the mess" (N/8(a), line 52).
Similarly, contrary to what is claimed in the summaries, Jaudat did not know in his first interrogation of 26 September 2023 who was with the defendant in the Dodge car at the time of the car-ramming, and only in his second interrogation did he mention Karim's name (see paragraph 37 of the defense's summaries). An examination of this statement shows that Jaudat explicitly stated in this statement that the person who was in the car with the defendant was his brother Karam: "Q: At the time of the vehicular incident, Ahmad was definitely with Karem in the car? A: Yes. Both together. Ahmad was driving and Karim was next to him" (N/8(a), lines 40-41).
With regard to the record (marked N/8(c)) that was prepared following the refresher that was conducted for Jawdat, from which it appears that he did not recall in the refresher the identity of the passenger next to the defendant ("someone who was next to him"), beyond the explanation given by the witness that 8 months had passed since the incident, it should be noted that similar to the many details he gave in relation to the accident, and in respect of which it was claimed that he did not perceive them with his senses, the fact that Karim was in the vehicle at the time of the ramming is also not in dispute and is confirmed by the defendant.