As a matter of fact, the defendant fled the scene without knowing the condition of the deceased, and not only that, but immediately afterwards he drove with the Dodge to the Yatir area, where he left the vehicle until he was stopped a few hours later at random. Indeed, this fact in itself does not necessarily indicate an intent to cause harm and can also be reconciled with causing death by negligence, and the panic that could have gripped him as a result. However, when the abandonment is joined by additional weighty circumstantial evidence that indicates an intention to cause prior injury, then it has incriminating circumstantial weight that acts on the defendant's duty, and in particular, where he has already stopped and did not dispute that he hit the deceased in the car he was driving, and gave a version, still, the offender refrained from pointing to the location where he left the Dodge vehicle ("I don't know, I left it in Yattir and walked", P/24, para. 27). This is only out of concern about the possible results of the examination of the vehicle and the findings that may result from it.
Even with regard to the abandonment, the defendant's version raises many questions, since even if he said that there were people at the scene, it is not clear what exactly caused him to flee. There is no claim on the part of the defendant that the same people who threatened him tried to damage his car. Thus, for example, in his first statement to the police, he stated that the deceased's cousins and brothers were at the scene, "and I thought that if I was arrested, something would happen to me." In light of this answer, the interrogator wondered how he could claim that at the time of the attack he did not know who he was running over, and at the same time claimed that Henders' brothers were at the scene. In response, the defendant changed his answer and claimed that "maybe it was brothers or uncles" (P/24, p. 6). As quoted above, the defendant in his testimony in court claimed that his brother told him to keep going.