Examiner Sabari was asked how he performed the field of vision experiment and what was the purpose of the experiment and he testified, while watching the video of the experiment he conducted:
"The purpose of the experiment was to check what the eyewitness Ayalon Zadok could see from the direction of his trip in relation to the two vehicles and the scene of the accident. I took two private cars, one a Scudia Kodia and it is about the same size as a Mazda car (defendant) and a Chevrolet Spark car that resembles a Kia Picanto, which is involved, I drive a Mazda 3 private car. Here in this experiment I asked the person who simulates the defendant's car to drive in his lane to the end without deviating and they stop next to a cone that I put right next to the accident site.
...
The second time I asked the owner of the Skoda to drive again in the same direction as the defendant, and this time in the opposite lane of a moving vehicle The Kia (mixed). In the first experiment, I see that the witness is not able to see in which lane the defendant's car is in, i.e., the witness cannot know whether the defendant's vehicle is swerving or driving in his lane, but throughout the entire journey the witness Ayalon Zadok can see the lights of vehicle A and the rear of vehicle B.
In the second experimentWhen the vehicle that simulates the defendant's vehicle moves into the opposite lane of vehicle B, it can be seen that the witness Ayalon cannot discern exactly which lane the defendant's vehicle is traveling, but it is also possible to discern the headlights of the defendant and the rear of the vehicle involved, so that as soon as the vehicle that simulates the defendant's vehicle swerves, it is no longer possible to see the front vehicle of vehicle A, but it is very clear where vehicle B is located. To the court's question, vehicle B moves from a place in its lane.
To Beyham's question"Q, if vehicle B is in its lane at the moment of the collision, what does that mean regarding the accident in the experiment?
The witness replies: This means that a vehicle that simulated the defendant swerved into the opposite lane.
To Beyham's question"Q, the defense says that you rejected the witness's version, Israel Zadok, what do you have to say about that?
The witness replies: TrueBecause the witness Israel Zadok can't see movement back and forth, here we see a slow video, but in reality it's a two-and-a-half-second driving distance. I do rely on the witness Ayalon Zadok, and that's why I didn't refer to Ad Israel in the examiner report.
Coming from this direction of travel in the video of the vehicle involved, you can see on the left side parts of the road in the direction of the defendant's vehicle, at night because of the bushes and the terrain, it looks like flashes of lights - light turns on or off and therefore I can understand Israel that what he saw he interpreted as a deviation from the lane several times." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 51-52, paras. 29-33,5-26).