In summary: Partush's opinion dealt mainly with "difficult" factual questions: the dimensions of the vehicle, the location of the injuries in the vehicle, the vehicle's integrity, a speed test, a braking test, a field of vision test, and "not to determine whether it was an accident or not" (p. 263). The witness's explanations that in the circumstances of the case it is incorrect to treat this case as a road accident case are acceptable to the court, and so is the manner in which he saw the (reduced) need for rehabilitation, regardless of its results, according to which if the defendant had tried to brake, the accident would have been avoided (this is the case with respect to the location of the deceased according to Jaudat's testimony and so with regard to his location according to the first blood stain).
Examiner Shimon Cohen:
Examiner Shimon Cohen assisted the Partush examiner when his job was to conduct a brake integrity test, and two experiments to test the field of vision (P/48). As for the field of vision tests, these were performed with one eye of the examiner covered with a patch (taking into account the defendant's claim that he does not see in the left eye).
As part of the first experiment, the examiner concluded that even when the vehicle was in front of the right turn, it was possible to discern the pedestrian (who was stationed in the place where Jaudat pointed out) at a distance of 37.1. And that even with the right turn and straightening, the deceased could be discerned, all the way.
As part of the second experiment, the examiner concluded that it is possible to discern a pedestrian in the middle of the road in the area of the incident before the start of the right turn (except for a partial disruption of the mirror) and the same after the right turn.
Checking the vehicle's health:
The examiner found that the vehicle's lighting system was in good working order and that after several trips in the vehicle, it was found that it was in good working order in terms of steering wheel, brakes and tires.