The witness testified, because the airbag computer of the vehicle involved has absorbed dust and weather damage.
The witness subsequently confirmed that the airbag computer was closed inside the car in the interior between the driver and the passenger. It absorbed some dust and dirt there.
The witness first testified, because the airbag computer of the vehicle involved was not hermetically closed.
Later, after he was shown a video, he confirmed, because it was not possible to open the airbag computer and it was necessary to drill for this.
When the witness is confronted with this, because the airbag computer is closed and needs to be drilled, so how could it be that the weather damaged and destroyed it, he replied that the device is not sealed.
The witness confirmed, that he did not perform a humidity test. According to him, the mere fact that he received high values and the lack of consistency in the values in the test he performed testified that the airbag computer was defective. (See his testimony of June 9,2025, p. 132).
The witness was asked about the GDS device he ordered from the Internet and used, that he did not provide any operating book of the device and he testified that he did not pass it because he did not use this equipment. According to him, when he prepares an opinion and uses the device, there is an additional chapter in the opinion or an appendix within the opinion that explains the conditions and what are the restrictions in the operation of the device.
The witness confirmed, because it is not known what the origin of the device he ordered and what its testing capabilities are. (See his testimony of May 14,2026, p. 145, paras. 22-26).
When asked if he is certified for a GDS device, testified that he had already undergone advanced training in 2016 of CDR and part of the course included the use of GDS.
When asked whether everything related to CDR is equivalent to GDSHe replied that he did not. According to him, there is a big difference between them regarding terms and conditions. He testified in this regard:
"Q. The essence of both devices is to pull data out of the airbag computer, right?
A. Yes. But in the CDR, when I perform the process of downloading data into vehicles that are on the Bosch CDR list, I emphasize that when I do the action from the vehicle itself, I will also bind the chassis number of the vehicle. As for Kia's GDS, I will not bind the chassis number and I must type it independently." (See his testimony of May 14,2026, p. 146, paras. 17-21).
He testified, because there is a difference in modules between countries. The modules are manufactured by suppliers of companies
Composition.
The witness was asked if he had a document from the Kia or Hyundai, which instructs him to perform a voltage test before connecting to the airbag, and he testified that the voltage test is something that is learned when the module is outside, is an expert question, as he says:
"Q. Do you have a document that instructs you on how to do a stress test before connecting to the airbag module?
A. I don't have such a document. What I want to present is an appeal by the European representative, presenting the court with a document of the Kia Forte, although it is not Picanto, 2013, it is a document from the syllabus of the Israel Police, in which the guy, the main instructor, turns to Kia and Hyundai, how can the download be performed, if at all and what data can be retrieved, everything appears in the document." (See his testimony of May 14,2026, p. 151, paras. 26-31).