When the examiner is confronted by the"The defendant, whose job it is to gather evidence and not to interpret the testimonies of witnesses, testified:
"I disagree with him, witnesses see a certain case in a fraction of a second from different angles, the examiner, after he plans all the findings, must understand what they saw, as he showed me in the previous hearing, it is to deny, quantify or confirm, or in simple Hebrew - when a witness says that the accident was in their lane, on a two-way road, one lane in each direction, when he is behind the victim's car and the defendant's car comes in front of him, then my interpretation is that the accident is head-on." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, p. 87, paras. 1-5).
The examiner confirmed, because the field of view in front is 30 meters due to the darkness and lack of lighting.
The examiner testified, that the Zadok family's car drove about 20 meters behind the vehicle involved, as the witness said, but in his opinion it was more. To the question of why he did not determine that it was more, he testified:
"It has no value in the matter of the conclusions of the accident. Even if he was 50 meters away, he would have seen the same thing. He sees a vehicle in front of him with rear lights, he doesn't know if he saw the shape of the defendant's car, but he sees its headlights and the lights can be seen from a great distance in the dark." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, p. 87, paras. 21-23).
As for the distance of 30 meters, the examiner testified, because it was not determined not from the direction of the defendant's or the person involved. According to him:
"... When I make a field of vision, I check the range of lights on such a dark road, if the road is lit then I walk (I should say - "walking" - A.H.B.) to the point where you can't see the lights, it's not necessarily from a certain direction of travel, but what is the range of the lights of the car. I emphasize again that lights of any shape and color, both brake or rear lights in red and white/yellow front lights, can be seen from much, much greater distances."
Q. Where is everything that you are saying now and adding and clarifying and expanding, written in black and white in an examination report, why is it that instead of writing a field of view two lines are written and I have to understand something different from what is written, look at how many new things you explain and we don't know it before your testimony, we hear here first here, I have to rely on an opinion and take into account that every day you add something new to me that is not in your testimony?
A. I also said to the defense attorney's question that if something needs to be clarified I will clarify, it is true that it is not recorded, but any reasonable person can understand that lights can be seen from any distance other than the 30 meters recorded in the field of vision. And also in the field of vision experiment in photography and video, it can be seen that this occurrence can be seen much more than 30 meters. Next time I will correct it." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, pp. 87-88, paras. 32-33,1-12).