The Defendant's Testimony
The defendant gave the police two statements (first interrogation P/43 - interrogated by examiner Maayan Tsabari, second interrogation - P/24 - interrogated by examiner Vladislav Pevzner about a year after the accident in question), gave a letter on his behalf (marked P/26 - a letter given to examiner Vladi) and a video and also testified in court.
At the beginning of his remarks, he should say, because the defendant's testimony gave me an unreliable impression.
A review of the defendant's statements in his police interrogations and his testimony in court gave the impression that the defendant's version of how the accident occurred was inconsistent and changed.
There are inaccuracies and contradictions between his version of how the accident occurred and the findings on the ground and the testimonies, and between his police interrogations and his testimony in court.
When confronted with these gaps, the defendant did not know how to give satisfactory explanations, dismissed himself each time in his cross-examination in court, because the defense presented a different theoretical possibility for the accident to occur.
I found it appropriate to bring the glaring inaccuracies that arose from the interrogations and testimonies of the defendant:
The ability of the defendant to see the person involved and whether the person involved deviated or overtook
The defendant testified in his first police interrogation (P/43) that he was driving in his lane and suddenly noticed the lights in front of him and then the collision. (paras. 51-52).
The defendant was later asked in his interrogation whether he had seen other vehicles driving in front of him, and he replied:
"I don't remember telling you, I don't think there's any other reason for her to get into my lane if she didn't go overtake." (P/43, S. 25)
Following his answer, he was asked if he knew how the collision occurred, and he replied no..
During his interrogation, he was asked if he knew how the collision occurred, and he replied no.. (P/43, para. 60).
Later he was asked if he had seen the second vehicle of the woman involved in the deviation or if when he first saw her she was was on his path and he replied:
"I didn't see her movement, I saw her in front of me, I must have seen her movement diagonally, it's hard for me to tell you her route, whether there was a sharp deviation or a slow slippage." (P/43, S. 62).