Careful examination of this cross-examination conducted, in my opinion, shows that this cross-examination did not undermine the professionalism of the examiner in all the actions carried out by the examiner, which were supported by the findings collected at the scene, in the experiments he conducted that could simulate the conditions of the accident in the closest way in real time and in reliance on eyewitnesses, and it certainly did not undermine the examiner's determinations and his final conclusions.
The examiner testified professionallyis clear and clear about all the actions he performed, while determining, which the witness reiterated in his testimony in court, that his conclusions about the manner in which the accident occurred, who deviated and who caused the accident, are supported by a combination of all the objective findings found at the scene, the field of vision test he conducted, the testimonies of those involved in the accident and the eyewitness testimony, all in accordance with the work procedures of traffic examiners.
As mentioned above, the defense in the examiner's cross-examination tried to raise hypotheses relating to another possible scenario regarding the occurrence of the accident, which in this scenario would ostensibly refute the examiner's conclusions, in particular with regard to the grooves as a factor in determining who is at fault in the accident, but all these hypotheses were refuted by Examiner Maayan, who is clearly familiar with the investigation of a road accident scene, the role of the examiner in investigating the scene of a road accident and certainly one that is fatal, who is familiar with the circumstances of the accident in question and is familiar with various claims regarding the possibility of another possibility of an accident occurring and examining their suitability for the case at hand.
The testimony of the examiner examines this matter It was firm and unequivocal that the theoretical scenario raised by the defense did not correspond to the conditions of the accident in question in terms of the field of vision and lighting, and therefore it was ruled out.