In any event, the defense did not prove that the examiner acted contrary to the examiner's work procedures in investigating the scene of a road accident, as it tried to do by means of documents submitted on its behalf (P/4).
Not only that.The defense also did not bring any objective evidence or expert opinion on its behalf to contradict the examiner's determinations regarding the accident in question.
The defense has the right not to bring a professional opinion on its behalf to deal with the direct findings found at the scene, butRefraining from bringing a professional opinion on the matter, for example at a key point where there are grooves in the driving lane involved, does not work in favor of the defense, and the version that the defense is trying to prove in court as another alternative theory of the occurrence of the accident.
There is no dispute, because the failure to bring a relevant witness, and in our case an expert witness on behalf of the defense who is a traffic examiner by profession, raises the suspicion that the party who refrained from bringing him is afraid of the testimony of this witness and creates the assumption that the testimony of such a witness might have strengthened the position of the opposing party. (See Criminal Appeal 6056/07, Ya'lab Al-Hamidi v. State of Israel, given on February 26,2009 andCriminal Appeal 11331/03Moshe Kais v. State of Israel, given on December 8,2004).
Moreover, not every theoretical possibility of an alternative accident scenario raised by the defense is necessarily capable of raising reasonable doubt or undermining the examiner's testimony and determinations as to the manner in which the accident occurred, and that the court is not required to examine any theoretical argument raised by the defense, if it has no basis in the reality of the accident before it, as stated above.
The defense also tried to undermine the examiner's work on the fact, that the examiner did not describe in the examiner's report the manner in which the vehicles moved after the collision and until their final position as they were found at the scene, whereas the examiner testified to this only in his testimony in the main interrogation in court, and therefore the examiner's report does not accurately reflect the accident.
This is what the examiner Maayan testified in this regard:
"Q. You just mentioned that the vehicles are front against front and then the vehicle involved is thrown to the right, no one describes a front against a front, is there not a single witness who tells you that? If it was a front against a front, I tell you that it would have collapsed on the spot, the two rear of the car would have risen in the air, landed and everyone would have moved backwards, neither to the left nor to the right, certainly not in a turn. Your description of the picture is inappropriate, and so is all the testimonies of the witnesses that do not fit the final position of the vehicles.
A. So it's not a façade versus a façade. Façade to façade is a perfect match. In this case, the court is presented with a picture of P/33B.