We examined for ourselves the blood marks found on the road and documented by Sgt. Israel Talker (P/3A). This study shows that there is indeed variation between the various spots, including their size, shape and spread at each of the points marked by the field researcher Israel Talker at numbers 1-6. In fact, in some of the points a large number of drops or stains can be discerned (for example, point 2), in particular the points are supposed to be marked No. 6. In order to illustrate this, the following are some of the photographs of the blood stains taken by the investigator at the scene:
It is not for nothing that the investigator of the scene, Israel Talker, noted in his report (P/3) that these were "hotspots" from which he took three samples (from the points marked 1,3 and 6). These words also have significance for the diagram (P/37) and the ability to deduce from it the direction of the dodge after turning right.
In addition, we take into account the testimony of Jawdat and Adam Abu al-Qi'an regarding the deceased's lifting from the road and carrying him towards his car (who claimed that at first "I thought the truth was cardboard"). The witness Adam even claimed that in order to load the deceased, he even drove his car in reverse. In his testimony, the head of the investigation team, Eyal Zeitun, also referred to the deceased's movement while loading him into the vehicle that evacuated him. The combination of these can explain the difficulty that Examiner Partush faced in relying on the blood stains as an indication of the place of injury. This conduct of the traffic examiner must also be examined in connection with what was said earlier regarding the reduced weight of reconstruction in the case at hand.
The witness was asked about the discrepancy between Jaudat's testimony and the location of the blood stain, a gap of 11 meters, and replied that in his experience witnesses are not accurate at the level of meters, and even if there is a gap in this case, it is reasonable in his eyes (p. 275). When he was accused that the gap was significant since the point of impact was 11 meters closer to the turn, doubting whether it was possible to perform the same maneuver of going up to the sidewalk and back to the road as in Jaudat's testimony, he replied that in such a case he believed that the defendant drove directly ("Dukh") towards the deceased and hit him because it was very close to the intersection (p. 277). As far as he was concerned, as an expert, what Jaudat testified was reasonable.