Mr. Effi Schwartz testified in fact that in light of his above determinations, in the final result, it was not possible to generate data from the airbag computer and the memory unit in the vehicle driving the car involved.
During the testimony of the defense witness, the expert Mr. Schwartz, there was a considerable controversy surrounding his professional experience, expertise, training and certification as a CDR expert.
During his testimony, Mr. Effi Schwartz, presented a certificate of the witness's participation in a course the witness took in Germany.
Before I express my position on this issue, I have found it appropriate to present the position of the parties as to the necessity of this expert testimony as written in the minutes of the hearing of 96.25, p. 120, paras. 7-14:
"Counsel for the accuser:
To Beyham's question"Q, if the computer shreds previous records, do I need all of the
The witness's testimony?
II"The defendant:
I said his testimony was unnecessary.
II20 The accuser:
All his testimony is superfluous. I only agree that..."
In these circumstances, it appears that both parties agree that the expert's testimony is superfluous in this case. Moreover, I have not found any need or importance to decide the question of the examiner's qualification and expertise, since at the end of the day the defense expert submitted an opinion on his behalf, which in practice lacks any data that was discharged from the airbag computer and the memory unit in which the driver involved is assembled, and his opinion does not shed light on the manner in which the accident in question occurred.
The "unloading report" was submitted on behalf of the defense expert, but described the actions performed by the witness Mr. Schwartz, in the process of unloading the airbag computer of the vehicle involved, without any actual data that could be relied upon in the accident in question and from which determinations could be drawn as to the manner in which the accident occurred.
In these circumstances, the document submitted on behalf of the defense was not sufficient to assist the defendant in his defense.
Above Necessity will be awakenedWhen the defendant was asked by the court, following the accuser's question that he did not have a certificate of certification for the CDR, he testified:
"To the court's question, do you have a certificate that says you are qualified, I answer that the answer is: No, but I claim that I am certified. The examiners do not either." (See his testimony of June 9,2026, p. 122, paras. 16-17).