Testimony of Muhammad Abu al-Qiyan:
This is the defendant's brother. He was not an eyewitness to the incident of washing or car-ramming, and his testimony revolved around what the defendant told him shortly before and after the accident, as well as what he knew, about the vision problem from which the defendant suffers. The witness's interrogation by the police was submitted in lieu of the main testimony.
In summary, he describes that on the day of the incident, between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 P.M., he was in a café and did not leave it, even though a family celebration was expected to be held in the evening in honor of his son's birth. Muhammad says that the defendant called him on the day of the incident and told him that someone had broken his car window. Muhammad told him that he would not worry and that he would take care of it, and that he would continue shopping for the event. Later, the defendant called again and said that someone had "jumped on the road" and he "didn't see anything." Another relative of his, Ahmad, also called him and said that the defendant "didn't see what happened" at the time of the attack. Muhammad testified that the defendant had a vision problem (strabismus in the eye) since childhood, and that he had undergone surgery on his behalf, but that the problem was not completely solved.
On the face of it, Muhammad's testimony does not support the defendant's version (and it is not for nothing that there is no reference to it in the defense's summaries). Nevertheless, it should be noted that his version of events with respect to what the defendant allegedly said to him raises difficulties. In this context, according to Muhammad, the defendant told him that he "continued until the junction because he did not understand what he was getting on, and then at the junction he stopped and continued" (N/6, para. 54). As detailed above, the defendant has several versions, but in none of them he claimed that he did not understand what he was boarding and therefore continued on the road (this should be said separately from the fact that in this version, Jaudat's claim that the defendant boarded the deceased with the dodge must be confirmed). Similarly, it does not stand to reason that the defendant would tell him that the windshield of the car was broken without describing the circumstances of the incident, let alone telling him who broke it. The same is true of the claim that the defendant told him that he did not know who he had hurt (and as noted, the defendant's later version is that he did know). The manner in which Muhammad sought to present his part in the conversation with the defendant when he did not clarify basic details, despite the "deviations" of the details that he claimed were made in it, does not inspire confidence.