Evaluation of the defense expert's version:
We are unable to accept the conclusions of the defense expert, when in the points of disagreement between the conclusion of the defense expert and the traffic examiners, we prefer the conclusion of the latter. We will also preface by saying that as a whole, we find the opinion of the defense expert, partly based on erroneous assumptions, or in contradiction with other evidence in the file. And what is this about?
At the beginning of his opinion, the defense expert notes that it is based on "a visit to the scene and taking measurements on September 4,2025" (see p. 4 of the opinion). Even so, no measurement or examination conducted by the witness in the field was attached to his opinion. The court was also not referred to any such measurement.
In his main testimony before us on November 19,2025, the defense expert explained that he had come to the scene in order to conduct measurements and experiments, but that people and cars began to gather around him, he felt threatened and therefore left the scene (p. 395). That the witness left the scene because he felt threatened, there is certainly no grievance and there is no expectation that he will endanger himself for the purpose of preparing the opinion. However, a place where he left without taking measurements, he must be precise in his wording.
Beyond the question of the wording, and the substance of the matter, it follows that the witness's conclusions are based on the results of the work of the traffic examiners. In this context, it is needless to note the great importance of arriving at the scene when we are dealing with a professional opinion relating to the question of whether or not an accident was intentional. And if you find that there is no reason to arrive at the scene in view of its exhaustion by the traffic examiners, one must wonder why, then, in the first place, the witness asked to come to the scene if from his point of view there was no need to do so. This is all the more reinforcement, when with respect to two significant points (the place of impact and the direction of crossing) the witness does not accept the findings of the traffic examiners, and when the calculations made by the defense expert are based on an approximate route, and the presumed field of view is derived from it (and detailed reference to this will be given below).