There is no dispute, that it is important that the scene of an accident remain as it is, until a traffic examiner arrives at the scene in order to document the scene as it is, and that every finding at the scene is important to the manner in which the accident occurred.
However, an accident scene does not always remain sterile, especially when it comes to an accident scene in which civilians and/or rescue forces arrive (44and there is a need to carry out operations in vehicles for the purpose of rescue, as happened in the present case.
Moreover, not every change in the location of one component or another at the scene of an accident, inter alia, for example, by moving parts and parts of a vehicle, is capable of contaminating the scene and substantially impairing the examiner's work in documenting the scene and in the examiner's conclusions regarding the manner of the accident, its location on the road and the culprit in the accident, i.e., constitutes a failure that goes to the root of the matter.
Their location at the scene of fractures alone cannot accurately indicate the location of the accident.
In the case at hand, debris remained at the scene whose dispersal was not contaminated (as appears from the photographs P/32 and from the disc of a photograph examining the scene P/34), they were not moved and which in their quantity and location combined with the rest of the findings on the road, the evidence and the testimonies, in order to add an additional layer that testifies to the location of the accident on the road.
However, And this is the main thing, even if fragments were moved in the scene before the examiner arrived, as in the case at hand, I did not find this to be of crucial importance, since first, the bumper or fragments that were moved were made by one witness and there are still many fragments left in the scene that have not been touched, and their grouping and location indicate the location of the collision.
Second, the findings on which the examiner's decision in this case is based are not based solely on the location of the fragments and/or their dispersal, but mainly on an evidentiary combination based on the existence of the fragments, together with the existence of the crack in the road and together with the testimony involved and the evidence.