Regarding the fact that a witness's version does not have to be a single piece, I saw fit to bring what was said in a criminal appeal 7477/08, Eitan Getz v. State of Israel, given on November 14,2011:
"The discovery of a contradiction or of a certain statement, which is not true or inaccurate, does not always necessarily lead to the rejection of the testimony in its entirety. Contradictions or certain changes in the testimony of a state witness do not necessarily prevent the court from trusting this version if it finds that a comprehensive examination of the version together with all the evidence and circumstances shows that his version is true.
...
A witness's version does not have to be a single pieceis inseparable, insofar as the truth is concerned. It may be found that one part of the testimony can be trusted and the other part not, for various reasons."
It should be noted that there was a circumstantial testimony of a state witness and the court found that circumstantial testimony, when the rest of the evidence is added to it, leads to a single conclusion.
This is all the more true when in our case we are dealing with the direct testimony of the witness Ayalon Zadok, whose words are consistent with the rest of the evidence and testimonies, and this, as stated above, despite the gaps between what he saw with his senses and testified to this and the actual damage to the vehicles.
To this he added, as I have already determined above, the defense did not bring any expert opinion on its behalf to contradict the testimony of the eyewitness.
From the above, I determine that it was the defendant who swerved from his lane of travel once to the lane of the driver involved and caused the fatal accident to occur.
The defendant was interrogated by the police when he was told that he had deviated from his lane according to the findings on the road, did not know how to give an explanation and replied that he was in his lane. When asked if it was possible that because it was a curve in the direction of his travel and he drove fast he swerved into the opposite lane, he replied that there could be no such thing.
When asked about this, witnesses who were driving behind the vehicle testified that he swerved and what he had to say about itHe replied:
"I don't think it's right or possible." (P/43, paras. 75-86).