The witness Israel Zadok was asked about the lights he saw and testified:
"A. Lights, there's nothing to see, it's all darkness and I saw a pair of lights coming from the direction against us
And I saw the tilt to the right and back. Could be twice but once for sure. Island
You could see the lights all the timeThe road itself today I drive on it all the time
There are trees and twists. I don't remember seeing the lights all the time but not all the time
I saw, because we were talking.
Q. I would like to refresh your memory from the statement to the police, in the first paragraph: "At the stage
At some point, I noticed a car coming in front of me and saw that it swerved twice toward the lane in which it was
We traveled, twice entered our lane and returned back to his lane, the third time he swerved
into our lane and collided with the car that was driving in front of us..." Do you remember that this is what you gave
In the police?
A. It may be but today that the pictures come back to me, I say I didn't see the
The lanes and I couldn't see because it was dark but I saw a right turn and a return of the
Lights. (See his testimony of 8 January 2025, pp. 33-34, paras. 31-34,1-16).
In his cross-examination, the witness Israel Zadok was questioned and shown a video of the field of vision experiment conducted by the examiner, from which it is not possible to see the vehicle that came in front of him, and when you see the beams of light, it cannot be said that it is a deviation, and he testified. In this regard:
"A. That in such a situation that you show me in the video I didn't see, when I referred to the lights I saw it was in a larger center and I didn't see a road anymore, I saw the lights in the distance. I saw lights that turned right and left.
Q. I showed you earlier that you can't see the lights in the video and you can't see the defendant's car, see the meter 20:25:47. So how can you say that you saw farther away? That if you don't see on this meter, you probably can't see more from the front side?
A. When I saw the lights, I didn't see a road, I didn't see lanes, I only saw lights.
Q. Could it be that it wasn't the defendant's car at all and you just saw lights?
A. I saw lights approaching, I didn't see who or what.
Q. I ask you from your testimony to the police: "At a certain point I noticed a car coming in the opposite lane and I saw that it swerved twice toward the lane we were driving, twice it entered our lane and returned to its lane, and the third time it swerved into our lane and collided with the car?"
On the face of it, you tell me in your own testimony that you saw the car that caused the accident 3 times deviatedDo you retract this after you said that you don't know what kind of car it is at all and you only saw lights? Do you retract that you saw this car of the defendant that swerved 3 times?
A. I saw lights, not this vehicle.
To Beyham's question"Q, the same lights that move, these are the same lights of the vehicle that made the
The accident?
The witness replies: I didn't see any more lightsThat's the only light I've seen.
To Beyham's question"Q, is this the same car that caused the accident?
The witness replies: I assumed that." (See his testimony of 8 January 2025, pp. 36-37, paras. 1-33,1-5).
Our Eyes, which see that this witness retracted in his testimony in court what he said in his interrogation with the police regarding three times the vehicle that was driving in front of them. According to him, he saw lights and did not see a vehicle.
However, at the end of his testimony in court, he testified, because the lights he saw belonged to the car that caused the accident.