It appears that this response of the defendant when confronted with the testimonies of those involved and eyewitnesses, in order to contradict his initial version that there was heavy rain at the time of the collision between the defendant's vehicle and the vehicle involved.
Scattering the Fragments
The defendant was confronted in his testimony in court in his cross-examinationIf, according to his version, the accident was in his lane, they would have seen the scattering of fragments in his lane, while the body camera footage shows that the fragments were scattered in the mixed lane, and he testified:
"A. I want to refer you to the witness who was here, who came to the scene first, he testified here
before the examiner and he told the court that he was moving things and removing the waste
From the roadThat's what I know.
Q. I'm telling you that the same witness Guy who testified here in court, he said explicitly
That he moved a bumperAnd he said about the word "I moved" that it was by mistake and apparently
It got confused with the word "I saw."
....
A. The witness testified in his testimony that he moved fragments/things, he specifically testified about a bumper.
Beyond that, the witness Ayalon Zadok testified that as soon as the opening between the two vehicles was opened, he passed
Traveling between them, which contributed to moving the fragments. (See his testimony of April 1,2026, p.
99-100, paras. 3-4,2-4).
Visible, that the first time that this version of the defendant came into existence regarding the contribution of the witness Ayalon Zadok to the contamination of the scene due to the movement of the fragments in the scene, and that due to his travel, the fragments were moved to the mixed driving lane, is in his cross-examination in court, as part of the defendant's attempt to deal with the issue of the dispersal of the fragments in the mixed driving lane, as evidenced, inter alia, the location of the collision in the mixed driving lane.
Therefore, this version of the defendant is suppressed testimony.
The rule that applies in the matter of suppressed testimony is that the evidentiary value and weight of the testimony is limited due to the concern that naturally arises as to to its truthfulness. This is so long as the witness does not have a convincing and satisfactory explanation for the reasons for which he suppressed his testimony. (See, Criminal Appeal 5386/05, Elhorti v. Israel Police, published in Nevo, May 18,2006, Criminal Appeal 4297/98, Hershtik v. Israel Authority, IsrSC 55,2000,673-688, andCriminal Appeal 3625/91Or v. Israel Police, published in Nevo, June 9,1993).
There is no dispute that this was indeed the case, as the defendant testified about them in his testimony in cross-examination in court, he would have argued this at the first opportunity given to him, but this was not the case.
Moreover, the defense chose not to cross-examine the witness Ayalon Zadok at all in his cross-examination in court on this matter, and therefore, this version of the defendant in this matter remains mere and is not even supported by any evidence.