Similarly, the premise in reconstructing a fatal car accident is that in the absence of any other indication, the pedestrian crosses the road from one side of the road to the other side at a uniform pace, at a normal speed (depending on the age of the pedestrian) and in a straight line (not diagonally).
In our case, there is no dispute that the defendant did not brake at any stage, neither before nor after the impact. The reference scenario (according to Jaudat's testimony) is also not of crossing a straight line at a uniform speed, but of an attempt to escape from a vehicle moving in the direction of the deceased while he was on the sidewalk and later down the road.
Moreover, even if we ignore the aforementioned difficulty and examine the case only from the perspective of a road accident, the weight of the recovery is reduced, since even a situation in which a driver is consciously driving at a speed that does not allow him to brake in time (one that he notices the deceased) can be reconciled with the intention of killing.
Examiner Partush explained this in his own words, when he claimed that although he had conducted a "certain reconstruction" (as he called it), this case should not be treated as a road accident: "Because a car accident is something that is unintentional, and in this case, as it were, there is some kind of intention here. So I cannot determine on the level of a person who suddenly drives, and suddenly had to react, that he should have reacted to the situation..." (p. 255). And to the question of why he did the reconstruction of the case, he replied that his purpose was to give a certain "indication" assuming that the defendant would have wanted to brake.
On the basis of the same rationale, the examiner confirmed that although the bruises found on the deceased's body can give an indication of the direction of his crossing (referring to a fracture in his left thigh), the ability to rely on this in the case at hand is reduced, if at all: "Because there are accidents in which once again, when a pedestrian tries to run to the right and left... I have a photograph that I recently received, of exactly such a case, of a pedestrian who picks up the vehicle and tries to escape, so you can't, it's not something you can say" (p. 268); "... This means that the location of the injury in the body gives you an indication of the direction of the crossing. It's not 100 percent, and certainly not in the case of a specific incident in which a person tries to avoid a vehicle [...] No, I want to say that then you also see that there are actually cases where a pedestrian tries to avoid the vehicle. That he was walking, that he crossed in a certain direction and at the last minute he tried to turn back" (p. 299).