In the margins, I found it appropriate to address a number of additional points:
Failures or Failures of Investigation
In its interrogation, the defense aimed at a number of additional failures or omissions in the investigation, as cited above, as part of the investigation of the accident in question.
The significance of an investigative failure depends on the circumstances of the case and the examination of whether the defendant's defense has been violated.
The alleged failures or omissions of the investigation are:
With regard to examiner Maayan Tsabari, he said that he drafted the examiner's report in a manner that was inaccurate and detailed with regard to the behavior of the vehicles from the moment of the accident to their final position on the road and with regard to the testimonies of eyewitnesses, whether it relies on their testimony in whole or in part in accordance with the findings on the ground.
In relation to the Vladi examiner Pevzner, who made calculations regarding the asphalt marks found on the belly of the vehicle involved in order to place the vehicle involved in its lane at the time of the collision, when the method of calculations was incorrect.
All of this is in addition to the alleged failure of the investigation in relation to the airbag computers and the evidentiary damage caused by the, and all as detailed above.
As I mentioned above, it is correct and proper that the examiner's report correctly reflect the entire manner in which the accident occurred, and certainly in relation to the manner in which the vehicles behaved from the moment of the collision until their final position as they were found at the scene.
This is also true with regard to the examiner's position with regard to the testimonies of eyewitnesses, which parts of the testimonies he accepts and which parts he disqualifies.
I have expressed my position on this matter, that this failure does not invalidate the examiner's report as a whole, and that from the examiner's report it is possible to understand the mechanism of the accident in this case and the fact that the defendant was the one who deviated from his lane of travel to the lane of the driver involved and caused the fatal accident.