The examiner testified in relation to the words of the woman involved, that the defendant's car got into it, because she did not tell him that in her testimony. According to him, at the moment of the collision, the hood of the victim's car smashes the windshield, and at the same time the airbag opens into the interior so that it is not clear to him how it could have seen how the vehicle got on it. The examiner turned and read from the testimony involved in the accident that:
"Lights, a car, a collision, and then I think I flew through the air with the car..."
When asked where in his probe report he wrote that the woman involved had told him that her car was flying, he replied that he did not write. According to him:
"... I do not have to bring the testimony in full in the examiner's report, an examination report is not a reconstruction of the entire file, but rather the main points." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, p. 84, paras. 20-21).
The examiner testified in relation to section 12 of the examiner's report that he would not have changed itand that he would have brought the witnesses' statements as they are, but would have added reservations with respect to the witness Israel Zadok, because he could not see a number of deviations and return to the lane before the accident in relation to the defendant's vehicle.
When the examiner was asked about the testimony of the witness Ayalon Zadok that he did not say that there was a head-on collision rather than a 90-degree frontal collision on the side, and that he recorded in the examination report in paragraph 11, subsection 10, that there was a head-on collision from Alon's testimony, he replied:
"He didn't say head-on, when I ask him Ayalon, how do you know that the lane opposite has swerved into his lane, the witness replies, 'I saw it all live in our lane' (reading from his testimony). Later, when he is asked which lane the accident occurred, he replies, "In our own lane, " so if he was in his own lane, then I say that his words say it was head-on.
...
I registered head-on, because Ayalon Zadok did not say that the collision was at 90 degrees, but rather that the vehicle broke in their direction by 90 degrees, and then they collided after the Kia moved a little to the left. I explained in the previous hearing to the court's question that when the defendant's vehicle exits the curve, it looks as if it reaches the lane of Ayalon and the victim at 90 degrees." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, pp. 85-86, paras. 24-27,17-20).