However, this is not the essence of the defense expert's disregard of objective findings in connection with his final conclusion. Thus, there is no dispute that the point of impact between the vehicle and the deceased is carried out while the vehicle is in the opposite (left) lane. This took place without any claim on the part of the defendant that he lost control of the vehicle. To this, we will add that according to the output of the T/45 ituran, the maximum speed reached by the Dodge at the relevant time of the accident while driving on the streets of Al-Doha-Al-Tikwa was 33 km/h (see the time range 18:51:39 - 18:52:53). In other words, even if we assume that the defendant was at his speed when turning right, it is still lower than the maximum speed at which it is possible to turn right with the Dodge without losing control, as estimated by the tester Partush and which stands at 40 km/h.
It should be recalled that even in the reconstruction conducted by the defense expert, as detailed in Picture 8 of his opinion, he draws a continuous arc route from the right lane of Al-Duha Street to the place of impact in the opposite lane. To the question of how he determined the defendant's travel route (and in the process to the opposite route), he explained: "... I proposed an approximate route that is a reasonable route. ..". How did he determine that turning right from the right lane in the straight arc to the opposite lane is a "reasonable" route - forever solutions.
It seems that counsel for the defendant also did not believe that there was any substance to this conclusion, and at the very least, he did not seek to base any finding on it. After the prosecutor rightly accused the defendant that all the calculations on braking distances were irrelevant since in fact the defendant did not brake, the defense attorney objected and argued: "Your honor, this witness did not come to testify whether it was intentional or unintentional, he does not refer to the threats that were made before me, he did not relate to the change of the vehicle. He came to give a forensic calculation, clean without witnesses whose reliability we dispute" (p. 451). This statement by the defense contradicts the mandate that the defense expert took upon himself to examine the existence of forensic evidence of the murder by car-ramming.