In his cross-examination, he added that as far as he was concerned, it was necessary to check the integrity of the vehicle, the field of vision, the speed test and the brake test "not to determine whether it was an accident or not an accident" (p. 263). The witness did not deny that he knew that there was a suspicion that there was a murder, but he claimed that the tests of braking and vehicle integrity were not connected to any testimonies: "... I photographed a field of vision and showed... I did a braking test... I braked and filmed... So what is contradictory, what?... After all, everything I said is based on facts and not based on what I said" (p. 268).
These explanations of the witness regarding the reduced weight of the reconstruction, as well as its necessity, are acceptable to us in this case.
As for the blood marks on the road, the witness explained that he could not rely on them to determine the exact location of the injury and it was impossible to know: "Did they pick it up, did they drag it and it left a drop of blood"; There are road accidents, in road accidents what is called sometimes there are places, you know, of a squirt or of some big stain like this that you can say here that it was actually needed (it was run over)... This is where the car actually hit him. Here there is a first point here that starts before the bumper that you assume is before that, assuming that before that the accident, that the accident was most likely in this area because that's the first point that was actually caught, okay... But I can't say 100 percent about it that this is the first point" (p. 272). Later he reiterated that he would have indicated what the point of impact was only when he was 100 percent sure of it: "Now, I can't mislead the court and tell it, listen, this first blood stain is the place of the accident." So the second and third points they could also have been on the assumption, so where is it like... ".
In light of this answer, the court noted that in any event, the place of impact cannot be the second and third point. Hearing this remark, the witness clarified: "These are points, Your Honor, this is not a splash or anything, it is drops that once again, I cannot determine that it did not leak from any place..." (pp. 281-282).