In our opinion, insofar as the expert witness disagrees (and emphatically) disagrees with this conclusion of Examiner Partush, he should have demanded the photographs of the blood stains, and based his claim that they are all the product of the body being flown away and not moving. This is also sharpened by the fact that, as appears from the opinion, the witness underwent two specific training in analyzing and identifying blood stains (both in the Netherlands), so that prima facie he could easily have negated Examiner Partush's position.
As for the very dispute over the meaning of the blood stains, viewing the photographs of the blood stains does indeed show that they are indeed unevenly spread out in different configurations and different quantities. To this, we will add that there is no dispute that the deceased, who was alive shortly after the ramming, bled from his face and from other parts, so there is a possibility that some of the blood stains on the road were created while he was being lifted and carried towards Adam Abu al-Qiyan's vehicle.
Similarly, the defense expert did not ask for or base his opinion on the security camera footage (P/9) that document, (even if from a distance), the defendant's driving in the Dodge car shortly before turning right onto Altakoa Street, and shortly after the ramming as the Dodge vehicle left the neighborhood. These videos, which are objective evidence, can show, inter alia, and as detailed above, the ability of the vehicle to brake, the manner of its travel, and its position in relation to the lanes of travel. The use of these videos is consistent with the witness's declared approach, according to which he relies solely on forensic findings (and this was also the witness's response whenever he was accused that the determinations and conclusions in his opinion contradicted the testimonies, including the defendant's version).
Even with regard to the defense expert's method of work, on the level of principle, the preference for forensic findings over eyewitness testimony is logical and acceptable, when there is no need to elaborate on why this should be done. Even so, in the case at hand, the defense expert did not prefer forensic findings to testimonies (or a combination of the two) but chose not to read the testimonies at all.