In this regard, the words that were said in theCriminal Appeal 7477/08, Eitan Getz vs. MI, given on the day
14.11.2011:
"The absence of evidence that stems from the failure of the investigating authority will be attributed to the prosecution's duty when the question arises as to whether it has lifted the burden of proof imposed on it. However, the mere existence of an investigative failure does not mean automatic acquittal of the defendant. The effect of the investigative failure depends on the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the degree of its severity. The focus of the examination is on the question of whether this is such a serious failure that the concern arises that the defendant's defense was deprived in such a way that he had difficulty dealing with the evidence against him."
In my opinion, even if it was possible to take actions relating to the unloading of the airbag computers of the vehicles involved and the police did not do enough in this matter, even though with regard to the vehicle involved, the Israel Police raised a claim regarding the inability to carry out this action since its vehicle is not supported in Israel, this deficiency does not act in favor of the defendant and weaken the existing fabric of evidence that can determine the defendant's responsibility for the accident.
In this case I was impressed, that despite the fact that the Israel Police did not exhaust the investigation regarding the air cushion computers of the defendant's car and with certain reservations regarding the vehicle of the driver involved, despite this deficiency, this deficiency does not impair the strength of the evidence in a way that cannot be based on the existing fabric of evidence, which includes objective findings on the road as well as testimonies of those involved and eyewitnesses, a conclusion and a decision regarding the guilt of causing the accident.
It should be noted, that it is possible to convict a criminal offense even when there are certain gaps in the evidentiary body, as in our case.
Beautiful in this regard are the following inCriminal Appeal 8899/06, Omer Armin v. State of Israel, given on July 29,2007:
"There may be cases in which the court will not be able to add an entire piece to the last detail from the evidentiary body laid out before it, but this alone does not justify the acquittal of the defendant, and it has already been ruled that "it is not uncommon for the evidentiary body laid out before the court to be inflicted in certain spaces or in obscure affairs. The role of the court is not to create a picture that reveals the details of the case in their entirety, but rather to decide whether, despite the existence of those voids, it is possible to link the defendant to the act attributed to him and convict him of criminal offenses" (Criminal Appeal 993/00 Noor v. State of Israel, IsrSC 56(6) 205,232 (2002); see also Criminal Appeal 6253/04 Dahari v. State of Israel, 26 April 2007)."