To Beyham's question"Q, the defense says that you rejected the witness's version, Israel Zadok, what do you have to say about that?
The witness replies: TrueBecause the witness Israel Zadok can't see movement back and forth, here we see a slow video, but in reality it's a two-and-a-half-second driving distance. I do rely on the witness Ayalon Zadok, and that's why I didn't refer to Ad Israel in the examiner report.
coming from this direction of travel in the video of the vehicle involvedYou can see on the left side parts of the road in the direction of the defendant's car, at night because of the bushes and the terrain, it looks like a flash of lights - a light turns on or off, and therefore I can understand Israel that what he saw he interpreted as a deviation from the lane several times." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 51-52, paras. 29-33,5-26).
The defendant in his interrogation at the police (P/43) of the first day of 25.2023, Replied on the matter of the field of vision:
"Q. How would you define visibility at the time of the accident?
A. You can see the road.
Q. Do you also notice separation lines? In the continuous strip?
A. See.
Q. Were you with high or regular lights?
A. Normal.
Q. Why didn't you turn on the high beams?
A. I didn't think there was a need? ".
In his interrogation The second was at the police on 3 April 2024, when the defendant was asked what he had to add to his previous interrogation, he did not add anything on this matter.
A few hours after the end of his interrogation The second was at the police station (3 April 2024), the defendant came to the police and asked to provide investigative material in the form of videos he had filmed from the scene of the accident (P/27) as well as a personal letter (P/26) according to which there was no field of evidence, and therefore the testimony of the witness as evidence that he saw him deviate from his lane is illogical and inconsistent with the course of the area.
The examiner Maayan drew up a memorandum dated 74.24. In accordance with the videos that the defendant submitted in the matter of field of evidence (P/39), in which he referred to the defense's arguments and wrote as follows:
"I watched the videos provided by the driver of Car A, and I identified the area of photography as Route 3415
K"From 7-8, the aforementioned is seen driving once from the direction of his arrival and once from the direction of the arrival of vehicle B when there is daylight.
Here"It is heard to say that there is no field of vision in the place and that it cannot be seen that he is deviating from the path
The second.
It should be noted that this has nothing to do with the field of vision since the field of vision experiment is conducted at night when it is dark and can only be seen according to road/passage lights."