The following is detailed in an examination conducted on the defendant about six months before the accident (March 12,2023):
"A condition after correction of strabismus in the left eye, from a young age he does not see well in the left eye.
Visual acuity : Right 6/9 Left FC 2 M.
[...] In conclusion, an amblyopia in the left eye is recorded
[...] For the Licensing Office/anyone interested - the aforementioned with good vision in one eye, clinically with a field of vision of at least 120 degrees, does not suffer from diplopia (double vision, DBT), to consider granting a driver's license up to 12 tons according to the criteria." (N/10 document marked 136).
Separate from the medical diagnosis, and apart from the fact that the same strabismus did not prevent him from obtaining a Class B vehicle license (and there is no argument that for a private car the vision requirements are less stringent), according to the defendant, he drives every day, both in the Avensis and in the Dodge. If indeed blindness in the left eye led to him not recognizing the deceased, how then does he drive as usual (and even demands that he drive the Dodge and not his brother, who he claims does not drive as well as he does). Similarly, how can a person who according to him does not see in his left eye at all, request to obtain a driver's license for a vehicle of up to 12 tons? The above shows that this is only a claim in the event of the deceased's being run over.
It is not superfluous to add that, as detailed above, the investigating unit in any case did not ignore the claim of blindness in the left eye and conducted a field of vision experiment with the examiner's left eye covered, an experiment that showed that even in this state of affairs, it was possible to discern the deceased from a distance that could be braked.
The defendant's version of the deceased's actions just before he was run over and the direction of his crossing:
With regard to this central issue, it was not possible to obtain a uniform version from the defendant, and this ranged from an argument that the first time he noticed the deceased was when he hit him, to claims that he also noticed the direction of his walking, as well as the acts committed by the deceased before he was run over. These matters were noted in detail in the chapter that discusses the corroboration of Jawadat's version, but in view of the importance of the matter (also in the context of the defense expert's opinion), they will be brought again in summary. In his first statement to the police - P/24, the defendant claimed that he "does not know where (the deceased) came from" (p. 5). Even in the continuation of this interrogation, when he was asked how he did not see the deceased, he answered: "How did I see him, I have an eye that I do not see at all" (p. 8), an answer from which it is learned that he did not notice him before he was run over.