At the same time, and with more caution, the court finds it appropriate to comment, that after hearing the defense expert's testimony, the impression was given that this testimony was mostly unclear, unorganized, inconsistent and incomprehensible with regard to issues such as the manner in which the airbag computer was disassembled, the opacity of the airbag computer and its ability to be damaged regardless of an accidental event, the procedure for unloading the data and the order of operations, the devices and software used by the expert to extract data - devices whose origin is unclear and were ordered from a website that is not known in Israel, the list of vehicles from which data can be unloaded in Israel, the number of events that the airbag computer saves according to each vehicle.
In this state of affairs, the question arises, did the fact that the Israel Police did not act in any way to download and unload data from the airbag computer of the vehicles involved and/or the fact that the way in which the vehicle involved was held while it was exposed to the elements of the weather caused damage in a way that did not allow the unloading and downloading of data from its airbag computer, all of this constitutes an investigative failure that resulted in an evidentiary injury, i.e., evidentiary damage, as the defense claims in its summaries?
There is no doubt that the police have a duty to investigate as thoroughly as possible, in order to obtain a full and complete picture of all the circumstances that led to the occurrence of the accident and as a result, to reach the truth.
Failure to investigate is failure to perform a required investigative action. Evidentiary damage is the evidentiary injury caused as a result. Not every omission creates evidentiary damage, and not every evidentiary damage leads to an acquittal. In criminal law, the question of whether the failure actually deprived the defendant's defense or raised the reasonable doubt required of his guilt is examined.
At the same timeThere are cases in which even where it was found that a certain investigative action should have been carried out and it was not carried out, despite the existence of this omission, which may have even led to evidentiary damage, the totality of the evidence in the case is sufficient to bring about a decision.
The court examines the deficiency or defect and the effect of the deficiency on the defendant's defense vis-à-vis the totality of the evidence. (See this matter Criminal Appeal 5386/05, Bilal Al-Horti v. Israel Police, given on May 18,2006).