There is no dispute, that it is correct and proper for an examiner to detail the manner in which the vehicles moved after the collision and until their final position, the fact that it was a frontal accident with an angle, as well as the fact that he relies only on part of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and on another part of their testimony he does not rely, even though he details their testimony, and all as he testified in his testimony in court.
At the same time, does not lead to the disqualification of the examiner's report as a whole. Not every failure or defect in the examiner's work makes the evidence or conclusions invalid or worthless.
Browse the examiner's report above, that the examiner's report with all its sections is a comprehensive and detailed report.
The examiner details the details of the accident, the details of those involved, the field of vision at the scene of the accident, the damage found in the vehicles, the technical tests of the vehicles to examine their integrity or impropriety, refers to the weather and the condition of the road, refers to the findings he found at the scene and their significance and determines conclusions, while referring to most of the evidence and testimonies in the accident before him.
It should be noted, that a careful examination of the examiner's report shows that the examiner did record the fact that the vehicle involved "crashed" onto the road after the collision, as appears from section 11 of the examiner's report, which is the conclusions section, and from subsection 15 of the conclusions section, where he recorded as follows:
"In the center of the lane of vehicle B, fresh and deep cracks were found in the asphalt, and they formed when vehicle B was hit by vehicle A and the vehicle's lower shield came into contact with the road when vehicle B "went down" during the collision."
After hearing the testimony of the examiner, which spread over two hearings and over long hours, I found his testimony to be reliable and professional.
It is evident that during his cross-examination, the examiner realized that he had made a mistake from time to timeHowever, this is a lack of detail that does not impair the examiner's report on its findings and determinations, for example, in its failure to explicitly determine in the examiner's report that it did not rely on the testimony of the witness Israel Zadok regarding the number of deviations from the lane of the defendant's vehicle, or the failure to detail the examiner's report regarding the manner in which the vehicles moved after the collision until their final position at the scene.
In my opinion, the lack of detail does not get to the root of the matter, since from what is stated in the examination report, it is possible to understand and determine the mechanism of the accident in light of the findings on the road and the testimonies.
The examiner did not try to evade these problems that arose in his testimony in relation to the examiner's report that he prepared, he answered all the defense counsel's questions and tried to explain the allegations against him, even if it turns out that this attests to some defect in his professionalism as an examiner in the drafting of the examiner's report, and I found that the examiner's honest answers attest to his reliability.
Moreover, it is equally evident that the examiner carried out what he had learned in the field of road accident research, when, as stated above, he prepared a detailed examination report and tried to document every detail at the scene (in photos and video), to examine all the testimonies, including the testimony of eyewitnesses, for example, the testimony of Ayalon Zadok regarding the field of vision in accordance with the route of the road and the conditions of the accident, the examiner conducted a field of vision experiment in order to examine whether the witness could indeed see what he testified about him.
The examiner also acted as part of the investigation of the accident scene on issues that were not raised by any of those involved, but it is correct and appropriate to examine them in the circumstances of the accident in this case, for example, a mechanical failure in the tire and the submission of an opinion in this matter in relation to the two vehicles, as I will discuss later, in order to rule out the possibility of raising this claim at a later date.
I will note, because in almost every road accident case it is possible to find deficiencies in the examiner's work, since almost every accident scene investigation will find deficiencies or additional investigative actions that the examiner could have performed.
In the case at hand, I found that the examiner documented the objective findings at the scene, collected testimonies and made a connection between the objective findings and the testimonies, in order to lead to the conclusion he held regarding the defendant's guilt in causing the accident in question, due to his deviation from the route of travel involved.
The examiner's explanations are consistent with the findings on the ground, with the testimonies and with the principles of road accident research.
I did not find that the failures that arose in the examiner's work in his testimony in court during his cross-examination led to the fact that his conclusion regarding the accident was a mistake and that he should have reached a different conclusion with respect to the occurrence of the accident.
As I have stated more than once in this decision, the defense did not bring any expert opinion on its behalf, and I accept that the objective findings that the examiner found at the scene within the framework of his expertise, which were not contradicted by the testimony of an expert on behalf of the defense, combined with the testimonies of those involved and the evidence, can provide an answer to the question of who deviated from his lane, where the accident occurred, providing an answer to the mechanism of the accident and who was to blame for its occurrence.
As I have already mentioned above, I found that the examiner's testimony was reliable, reliable and professional, despite the technical deficiencies that the defense was able to raise in its interrogation, and I did not find that these deficiencies were capable of impairing the examiner's professionalism and the examiner's conclusion and the court's ability to understand the manner in which the accident occurred on the basis of the findings, the testimonies and all the professional actions that the examiner performed in his investigation of the accident in question.
The examiner gave a clear picture as to the mechanism of the accident's occurrence, and on the other hand, the defense did not know how to deal with the findings documented at the scene and explain how these findings do not fit with the prosecution's version or vice versa how these findings fit in with the defense's version.