Already now he will say, because these videos that were submitted to the investigation file are a very late attempt by the defendant, about a year after the accident and his first interrogation, to complete what he did not say in the course of his interrogations, and it is clear that this was done after consulting with his attorney in close proximity after the conclusion of the second interrogation.
Examiner Maayan Sabari examined the defendant's later arguments regarding the field of evidence, as appears from the videos submitted by the defendant, and he provided a professional response to this in a memorandum prepared by P/39, as cited above, while determining that there is a field of vision only according to road/passage lights, as determined in the examiner's report and as can be seen in the video of the field of vision experiment that he conducted in the matter of the eyewitness, and as this is also consistent with the defendant's first interrogation, in which he claimed that he could see the road and did not even see the need to turn on high beams before the accident.
In the aforementioned circumstances, it must be determined that there is a field of vision, even if it is limited and short-term, for each of the crows in the accident as well as for the eyewitness Ayalon Zadok.
The field of vision that exists for the witness Ayalon Zadok (as shown from the experiment P/34 and P/36), has the power to enable the eyewitness to see the markings on the road, which also arises from the testimony of the defendant himself cited above (P/43), the direction of the vehicle involved in which he drove, the location of the vehicle involved in relation to the dotted separation line on the road, the possibility of seeing the defendant's vehicle swerving and entering the opposite lane, which is the lane of the vehicle involved, and the place where the accident occurred.
This determination also strengthens the evidence, as will be further cited above, regarding the place where the accident occurred.