I accept the examiner's determination, because the grooves created in the road are a high certainty of the point of impact.
Keep in mind, that the examiner saw the grooves mark in combination with the testimonies of the driver of the vehicle involved, the testimony of the passenger in the vehicle involved and the testimony of the eyewitness Ayalon Zadok, as substantiating his conclusion regarding the defendant's deviation from the driving lane of the driver involved and causing the accident.
It should be noted, that the prosecution's witness, examiner Vladislav Pevzner, was required to make a calculation of the damage to the underbelly of vehicle B. For this purpose, the following evidence was submitted in the framework of his testimony:
The first - Memorandum - marked P/21A and P/21B, these are the photos of the underbelly in which the damage to the underbelly of vehicle B (the mixed vehicle) from the right side of the vehicle was examined until the damage to the underbelly began.
The second - Pen document - marked P/22 in which the damage to the underbelly of Vehicle B from the left side of the vehicle was examined.
The third - A side memorandum - marked P/23, in which he states the contradiction with regard to the side of the vehicle from which the measurement was made between a strong memorandum and a pen document. And states:
"3. Due to a contradiction that I found between what is recorded in the two documents, I tried to recall what the measurement was actually made out of these two options, but due to the passage of Haman, I cannot say with certainty.
4. The meaning of the option described in the document 77 - the vehicle must be moved from the place where it is located in the document to the left by 26 cm."
Examiner Vladi confronted this contradiction and testified:
"The A.Z. document, I documented that I arrived at the lot and checked the car, there are a number of vehicles here, I measured from the side until the beginning of the damage and measured the overall width of the vehicle. In the A.T. document, I made a kind of diagram and calculated the location of the vehicle in the lane according to the measurements I made in the lot. I took the data of the width of the road, the width of the lane and the width of the curb, from a sketch made by the examiner Maayan Tsabari.
As part of a refresher in preparation for the testimony that I reviewed the material, I discovered something that I subsequently edited another memorandum dated January 2,2025.
Why was the additional memorandum drafted?In the A.Z. memorandum, I documented that the measurement of the distance from the wall to the damage was made from the right side, in the A.Z. document the measurement is from the left side and there is a contrast here, and because of the time that has passed, I don't know for sure what the measurement was really made from the right side or the left side.
In the later document I wrote the meaning of measuring from the right side and not from the left side as described.
In both positions, the right side or the left side, the vehicle is still in the lane, it's a 26 cm shift.
Q. When you say the vehicle is in the lane, in which lane?
A. This is a two-way road with one lane in each direction, and the location of the vehicle is in the right lane with the direction of travel. I will reiterate that this is the mixed B vehicle, meaning that it is the vehicle to which no blame is attributed.
To Beyham's question"Q, when the attorney asks me in which lane, is it in the lane of the vehicle involved (Kia), I answer yes. When I said that it was assumed that the measurement was made on the right side, there was a movement of 26 centimeters to the left in the direction of the separation line." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 42-43, paras. 9-28).