The witness was asked about his testimony that the defendant's vehicle broke 90 degrees in the direction of their lane and that the accident occurred in which the right side of the defendant's car received a blow from the front of the Kia vehicle involved, and he was told that this was not possible because before the pictures you do not see any injuries on the right side, but the damage to the defendant's car is in the front and it is possible that what he saw was not there, he testified that he stands by what he saw and according to him:
"Q. So could it be that what you saw wasn't there?
A. I stand by what I saw
Q. Does it fit in with reality?
A. It doesn't fit with what I said, probably because of the speed of the whole accident.
Q. We are here to investigate the truth, a man is on trial for his life now, for his freedom.
Own, will he see his children that he is in a prisoner's uniform or not, after you
See it - the pictureYou can tell me for sure that you put your hand on what it is
That happened despite the forensic evidence?
A. I stand one by one on what I saw.
Q. Your testimony can send a person to prison, there is forensic evidence in front of you on behalf of
The PoliceCan you say that maybe you were wrong and it doesn't fit with your testimony?
A. The only difference between what I see in the picture and my testimony is the point of injury.
Eventually the vehicle in the photo swerved 90 degrees into my lane. I saw the
The collision as I describedThis is a hundredth of a second that I can't see from
Obviously, the point of impact, but what is really important is that the defendant's vehicle entered
My Path.
...
The question at what point are you asking? I saw a car enter my lane. (See his testimony of January 8,2025, pp. 26-27, paras. 25-34,1-9).
The witness was shown photos of the examiner from the accident, he was asked about the damage and replied that the photo showed two vehicles colliding in front of them.
Therefore, he was asked whether he wanted to reconsider his testimonySince the examiner says that the accident was frontal and not frontal and that it cannot be that the vehicle arrived at a 90-degree deviation, he testified that he could only say what he saw, as he said:
"A. I can tell you that I saw a car swerving into my lane
Q. But I'm telling you that you're wrong because you didn't see a front-to-side hit, but a front-to-front. Consider, maybe you were wrong?
A. Nope. I saw a car enter my lane
Q. Where does it fit in?
A. According to what it seemed to me, it was an injury on the right side, I say what I saw
Q. The whole idea of cross-examination is to verify you with other evidence about what you saw
A. I can tell you that I saw for sure a vehicle coming into my lane, as if it were
Coming to turn left." (See his testimony of January 8,2025, p. 28, paras. 6-14).