During the testimony of the examiner in cross-examination - the intrusion order issued to the computer of the defendant's car -Submitted and marked N/2.
The examiner confirmed that according to the examiner's book, there is an obligation to confront witnesses with the forensic evidence that stands in complete contradiction to their testimony.
Therefore, the examiner was asked why he did not summon the witness Yisrael Zadok and confronted him with the fact that his description could not exist in realityAnd he testified:
"Because the witness was not interrogated, I don't have to hurl findings at him that I find, I have to refer to the examiner's report or contradict or contradict or quantify the witness's version and contradict it. As I said in the main interrogation, I did not relate at all to the testimony of the witness Yisrael Zadok, and therefore I see no point in summoning him from Ra'anana to Ashdod just to tell him that he could not see what he saw." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, p. 56, paras. 9-12).
When the examiner was told that as a result of his failure to summon the witnessParagraph 6 of the indictment was recorded regarding the number of deviations of the defendant's vehicle, and he testified:
"I did not write the indictment. The last document in the file in which I express an opinion is the examiner's report. The examiner's report relates to all the findings that I see fit and refers to them, I did not just omit the eyewitness Israel Zadok." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, p. 56, paras. 19-21).
If so, the examiner was asked where the exclusion in the examiner's report that the testimony of the eyewitness does not correspond to the findings testified:
"My conclusion is that the driver of the car swerved out of the lane. If I thought I could rely on the witness, it would also appear in the final conclusion and it was recorded that the driver of car A swerved out of his lane several times. You can see that I did an entire field of vision experiment in which I examine what can be seen and what cannot be seen, and also in the main interrogation I said that I did not rely on Israel Zadok in the final conclusion.
To Beyham's question"Q, does the witness Israel Zadok say that the defendant swerved three times and in your conclusion it says that the defendant swerved, can I understand from this that the defendant strayed and rely on the testimony of Israel Zadok?
The witness replies: If the court only reads the examiner's report, it can understand that the court (90)The examiner - A.H.B.) will also rely on the testimony of Yisrael Zadok regarding the deviation.
To the Court's Question: Is It Written in All the Court Documentsthat you reject the witness Yisrael Zadok's version? Even the slightest indication?
The witness replies: I don't remember." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 56-57, paras. 27-33,1-7).