The aforesaid dissonance can be learned from the witness's conclusion as stated in paragraph 29 of the opinion, in which it is written: "The indictment states that the vehicle ran on the left sidewalk (eastern) even though the police examiner could not link the tire marks at the scene to the incident. Moreover, even if the determination is correct, it is also appropriate for an attempt to avoid an accident." Thus, the witness himself confirms that the same factual element can be reconciled with both the accuser's thesis (of murder) and with evasion, which indicates an opposite desire - to avoid harm.
These examples show that the ability to learn about the existence of a mental element is required for the offense of murder only on the basis of findings from the scene of a limited road accident. It should be recalled that the witness's alleged expertise is in the reconstruction of road accidents. Therefore, he should have remained within the scope of his expertise, adhering to the work of the examiners and to questions relating to, inter alia, speed, crossing directions, field of vision, braking times, etc.
More importantly, even if we follow the defense expert's approach that he can confirm or refute the existence of forensic evidence of the murder, his final conclusion that there is no forensic finding to support the murder theory (all the more so what is stated at the end of his conclusion that "the opposite is true") is far from convincing.
This refers first and foremost to the fact that the Dodge did not brake at any stage, not even late (an objective finding, even if negative). Not only did it not brake, but after hitting the deceased, it continued to drive continuously to the intersection (abandoning the deceased at the scene). When it reached the intersection, the vehicle did brake (and see the reference to the security camera footage where the brake light can be seen turned on), and from there it accelerates and exits towards the exit from the neighborhood. Nothing is possible in light of these critical factual findings to reach the conclusion that "the opposite is true".