The examiner confirmed, because in retrospect he would have written that he did not rely on the testimony of the witness Israel Zadok regarding the number of deviations. According to him, he brought the testimony of the witness Israel Zadok in the examiner's conclusions when he brought the testimonies relevant to the weather at the time of the accident.
The examiner testified, that the examiner's report was prepared before the defendant's second interrogation. The second interrogation stemmed from a request to complete the interrogation. He confirmed that the examiner Vladi was confused.
When the examiner is again confronted with the testimony of Israel Zadok, which does not match the evidence regarding the direction in which the defendant's vehicle was thrown, and that this contradicts the final position of the vehicles, testified that it was not compatible and that, as an examiner, testifies to how he found the vehicles in the field.
When asked whether in light of this, there was room to take additional testimony from the witness, Raya Yisrael Zadok testified:
"A. No, because in the field of vision test I showed that you don't see a car, but lights.
Q. Let's assume that Mr. Yisrael Zadok has no value for your work as an examiner?
A. It has value, as it describes the weather at the time of the accident.
Q. So his testimony is important, right?
A. I referred in his testimony to the matter of the weather." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, p. 58, paras. 27-31).
The examiner confirmed in his cross-examination, because he relied on the testimony of the witness Ayalon Zadok.
The examiner confronts the fact that the witness Ayalon Zadok describes the manner in which the accident occurred 90 degrees, the damage to the front of the vehicle and the right side of the defendant's vehicle, and that the defendant's vehicle rose in the air and flipped over with its roof in front of the floor, and that this did not correspond to what was happening on the ground, and he testified that it was indeed incompatible and according to him:
"A. He says that the vehicle involved entered on the right side of the defendant's car. I'll explain why Ayalon said that, because he saw what he saw when he left the curve. He doesn't know the terrain. When a vehicle comes in a curve to the right, when the defendant's car swerves, the witness sees it as broken, he sees the entire direction of his arrival as broken, it's a curve and it looks 90 degrees, and that's what the witness Ayalon described.
Q. Do you know how long it took me to convince the witness who is not familiar with the terrain that it is possible that he saw an optimistic illusion due to the darkness and the curve?
A. The witness describes what he sees as he sees it. It should be remembered that this is a segment of about 20-30 meters in about a second and a half, with all the witnesses seeing it as complete surprise, and that is why he interprets it as a 90-degree angle." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, p. 59, paras. 22-30).