The Honorable Judge Bornstein: We can identify it.
The witness, Adv. Tussiyeh Cohen: It could be,
The Honorable Judge Bornstein: We can identify that it is a kitchen.
The witness, Adv. Tussiyeh Cohen: Okay, okay, I can't..."
- This testimony of the appellant raises great perplexity and significant discomfort. The photograph about which he claimed that he could not identify where it was taken, and whether it was indeed a photograph of the kitchen in his apartment, had already been attached to the reply and until this stage of his cross-examination, the appellant did not claim that it was not a photograph from inside his apartment. Moreover, and as stated, this version of the appellant is inconsistent with the photographs of the kitchen that were attached to the expert opinion on his behalf, which were submitted as part of the claim he filed against the contractor. On the face of it, it is the same picture (in black and white, and from a slightly different angle) as the committee could easily have been impressed with its own eyes.
- It should be noted that in the course of his testimony the appellant presented another photograph (marked A/1) and claimed that it was the picture of the kitchen in his apartment, and that it was not at all similar to the picture on page 231 of the respondent's affidavit (and hence this picture was not taken in his apartment). The problem is that it is also easy to discern that this is the exact same kitchen, even if it has been renovated and upgraded, and in the same apartment, and despite all this, the appellant has repeatedly claimed that he cannot confirm that it is a photograph taken in his own apartment.
- To his affidavit (paragraph 14), the appellant attached photographs of the kitchen area and claimed that they were the ones that reflected the state of things in the apartment at the time of purchase. The following are the photographs that the appellant attached to his affidavit:
On the other hand, it is possible to get an impression from the photo of the same kitchen, as taken by the sellers, that this is also the photo (in black and white and from a different angle), which was attached to the expert opinion: