The witness was shown a video of a field of vision experiment conducted by the examiner as if from his own vehicleHe was asked whether the defendant's vehicle appeared to be in a swerve, and he replied that the defendant's vehicle did not appear to be in a swerve. According to him:
"A. No. You can't see well enough. It's a video I saw in reality and I testify to what I saw in reality. There is no visual quality in the video.
Q. I'm telling you it's an HD video that's more than a human eye, what do you say about it, you stand by your version and I showed you the video every 3 seconds?
A. I understand that in terms of frames, it's more of a human eye and I still stand by my version, in reality the visibility is very good and I saw that the car entered my lane." (See his testimony of January 8,2025, p. 30, paras. 22-27).
Regarding the discrepancy in damages between his version and the actual damages in the vehicles involved in the accident, the witness testified again that he did not know how to say on this matter.
The witness was asked:
"Q. You understand that at 70 km/h this is the point at which it should start to deviate
In your opinion, as it appears in the video, it is about 20:26:00 and you understand that the car is in front of you.
Also driving at 70 km"And he approaches a vehicle that allegedly deviates and according to the laws of the
PhysicsIt could be that he is getting closer to him and as he gets closer, he hides it from you
The same (the defendant's car) more?
A. Yes. But in reality, the defendant's car was not hidden.
Q. Now that I've shown you another layer, now you understand that something doesn't work out with
Your version?
A. Nope. Because I saw the car for sure in reality and what you're showing me is a video.
Q. I'm showing you that what the examiner determines is that according to the experiment, "when you get close to a place,
The accident It is not possible to distinguish in which lane Vehicle A (the defendant's vehicle) is traveling in.".
A. I didn't see that the defendant's car swerved, but I saw a turn. I said I didn't see that he
Deviated from his path or notRather, I saw that he had turned out of his lane.
Q. What is the difference between turning and deviating?
A. He literally turned into the lane. It's not a matter of noticing which path he's on
Rather, it's just that he turned into my path.
Q. So I'm telling you that what you saw is an optical illusion as a result of the bend and therefore you thought
that it deviates to the left from its direction, it comes from a bend to the right, and every right side of it is exposed.
to you and until the victim's car arrived, did you think he was turning to your path? The examiner determined
Where did the accident occur?, which is right at the exit of the curve to the right. Why don't you say that a person is standing
About his life, that I have a small doubt and don't want to commit?
A. I saw that he was turning, it was a few seconds.
Q. Was it seconds or seconds?
A. It was less than a second I saw
Q. That the two vehicles are moving in front of each other, meaning that they are approaching each other 40 meters at 70 meters
100"Q, so why don't you say that a person is standing on his life that I may have been wrong, that there is a curve
And I didn't know about its existence? The examiner determines everything he determines and you stand firm Jakov
Judgment on the mountain?
A. I insist that I saw the vehicle coming from the opposite side enter my lane.
Q. So let's summarize what you did wrong, there is no damage on the right side of the car even though you
Claiming that he got into it on the right side of the car?
A. Yes
...
Q. And that the car is on the right curve, you couldn't tell me at any point according to
In the video even though I stopped the video for you every 3 seconds, in enlargement, you couldn't
To undertake where the defendant's vehicle is located?
A. True, but in reality I could see where he was.
Q. Even when the examiner explicitly states and rejects your version and your father's, which
You can see deviations, you are still standing and you are at peace with the fact that you will send a person
To Prison"Your testimony?
A. I'm not sending a person to prison, there's a judge here and I'm saying what I've seen and I'm at peace with
It's, there was good visibility, I saw the defendant's vehicle turn into my lane."
(See his testimony of 81.25, pp. 31-32, paras. 2-34,1-9).