Beyond that, and on the rhetorical level, one must wonder about the change in the witness's level of certainty in relation to the "evasion" scenario, so that a scenario that is initially presented as "possible" becomes an unequivocal determination at the end of the opinion. Thus, in paragraph 12 of the opinion, the witness refers to the blood stain on the right rear tire and immediately afterwards writes, "Perhaps with the intention of evading injury. ..". In paragraph 16 of the opinion, the witness repeats the presence of the blood stain, this time noting that these "can testify to an attempt to evade...". And now, in the conclusions section, there is no longer any doubt, and the witness states unequivocally that the blood marks "indicate an attempt to evade danger." This decisiveness also characterized his testimony in court, in which he rose to another level and no longer spoke of attempt, but of evasion: "I don't know at what point he evaded, I have no idea, but I know that he evaded" (p. 485).
Beyond the aforesaid, an act of evasion embodies an assumption that the steering wheel was swerved in order to avoid injury to the pedestrian, but this was unsuccessful (and therefore the blood letters were also found on the rear tire). In this regard, see our previous reference to the difficulty in tracing a mental element in an incident of hitting a vehicle.
Moreover, the deviation of the vehicle from its lane (whether intentionally or in order to evade) corroborates a significant detail from Jaudat's testimony regarding the fact that the vehicle did not drive straight but rather made some kind of movement with the vehicle (a scenario that the defendant also claimed in his first interrogation). As noted, the expert witness cannot determine at what point the Dodge deviated from its course, so that it could have happened even near the point of impact.
As for the determination that this was an inevitable accident, all that has been detailed so far (in relation to the direction of the crossing, the speed of the crossing and the manner of crossing) is sufficient to cast doubt on the assumptions on which the expert witness relied. In fact, it is sufficient that the deceased is placed to the left in the direction of the defendant's travel, so that the entire calculation made by the witness is irrelevant. To this, we will add that we learn from the words of the expert witness that the defendant had the opportunity to avoid harming the way the steering wheel was swerved, when according to him it was a movement that was reflexive, in which case it was a period of 0.1 seconds, although it differed from the way he acted in other contexts.