Furthermore, with regard to the formula used by the defense expert, he was accused that this was not an acceptable formula, which appears in the examiners' book, and he was even offered to indicate exactly where this formula appears. The defense expert refrained from doing so during his testimony, and although he was offered to check the matter after the hearing and to give a notice accordingly, this was not done.
According to the formula, apart from all the difficulties described so far, the witness took the height of the deceased -1.6 meters, and in fact performed a calculation of a free fall from this height to the floor. After calculating the aforementioned duration, he multiplied it by the speed of the vehicle and reached a result of 6.3 meters (see Figure 3 of the opinion). The figure of 1.6 is incorrect twice. The first time because the height of the deceased was 1.68, and the second time because the correct height for the purpose of using the formula is 1.40 meters as the height of the bumper that the deceased's head first hit and only then was thrown to the floor (it is not probable that after hitting the bumper, the deceased will again stabilize to its full height).
In addition, the very fact that the vehicle did not brake at all means that the speed of the deceased's body when it is detached from the vehicle decreases (also due to contact with the road), while the speed of the Dodge remains constant, so that inevitably, at some point, the Dodge vehicle "bypasses" the body and runs over it. The aforementioned physical mechanism is consistent with Jawdat's description of the car-ramming.
Notwithstanding the above, the defense expert, who is well aware of the mechanism detailed above, ruled out the possibility that the Dodge boarded the body of the deceased, and reiterated several times in his opinion that the various findings indicate an attempt to evade. This is also one of his conclusions in the summary of the opinion: "The imaginary findings on the car indicate an attempt to evade danger coming from the right." We also found it difficult to accept this argument of the witness. Let us clarify that it is not the very claim regarding the vehicle's deviation that we find problematic, but rather the determination that it is an attempt to evade.