You be the Judge

What I would like to do at this point is to gain some of your confidence regarding  some of the matters I have disclosed in various pages of this web site. After all you do not know me and the onus is on me to gain your confidence. I cannot think of a better way of doing this by introducing various of proof  that cannot be disputed. I can safely say that even the laws of  probability weighs in my favour. I don't expect anyone to be an expert on law, a judge or  intellectual giant to work these  things out. Just rely on plain old commonsense. 

On July 1979 I was involved in a motor vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection governed by traffic lights. I will avoid going  into too many technicalities  Below are the facts I consider important.

1. I along with my two partners claimed that  we had an amber light when we entered the intersection .The other driver claimed to be driving off from a stationary position. That is,  he claims was moving off very slow in obeying  a green light.

( i ) The judge for whatever reason did not believe our testimony. That's fine. let's continue.

2.  The driver of the other car alleges he was driving off from a stationary position. So the Judge for whatever reason believes him rather than the testimony of  the Police Officers. So evidently you cannot rely on the Police testimony. What about the physical evidence ?

(a) The roadway  used by the other driver approaching this traffic control light was uphill. It slanted upward. Which meant any prudent driver, who was stopped at the lights as he claims he was, would have been doing one of the following. 

(i)   His handbrakes would have been applied or he would roll back. This is the physical condition of the roadway. I cannot change nor fabricate that.

(ii)  If he did not have his handbrakes on. We can only to assume that he was riding his clutch in anticipation of a green light. This is your only other option if you were in fact stopped.

Regardless of what action he took. We can ascertain that these are the only  two possibilities. Which  requires concentration or you would stall your vehicle whilst you are stopped or even moving very slowly uphill. I cannot tamper with this proof  because it is the law of gravity. Not a man made law.

Speed is another important factor here or even the  lack of speed as is claimed.       

What is very puzzling is that if you were to take a look at the photographs of our Police vehicle the impact is not consistent with this claim. It cannot be. You cannot possibly travel from a stopped position or even a slow manner and almost immediately come into contact with our vehicle and practically demolish the Police  car at the speed that is claimed. More telling is from the distance he travelled to enter the intersection. That is not a fabrication it is merely from the law of measurements.  Even if you were to take that ingredient away, you have another problem . Under no circumstances can you blame our Police vehicle for generating the type of momentum  which caused the type of  impact damage to the Police vehicle. The momentum required does not match.  As the extensive damage was to the middle nearside of the Police vehicle. Our Police vehicle was in fact ram rodded.  That was not created by our speed but some external  force which was  introduced to the Police vehicle. Something would have had to have impacted considerably with our vehicle to cause that much damage. We all knew what that something was. That is the law of velocity created by the offending van. Not a man made law as well.  Look at the photo's of the Police car, that certainly can't lie. That will tell you the whole story. 

The other matter I raised was the inexperience of the investigating Officer. That is very crucial. Certainly he was able to confer with a more experienced investigating Officer over the days that followed. But one of the most important factors I have mentioned was also alcohol. The driver of the other vehicle was not breath nor blood tested. Even after I had advised him of my suspicion of  his sobriety. That was not fair to me.  The system placed that Officer outside that evening  and place him in an uneviable position.     

My claims can be easily substantiated by looking  into the investigating officers record. This will attest to his inexperience. We can take that even further and check that the night prior to this collision, he had contacted us over the Police radio as he had encountered an accident and did not know what to do. Look at those records as well I can't fabricate that as well.

Lastly look into  the other driver's driving record. He had a prior conviction for disobeying traffic control lights. Unfortunately, a Judge cannot see this till he has made a determination to the case . But there you have it. The law of probability, the law of nature,  and even physical evidence is in my favour. So what happened ?   

On the 23 March 1983 I was assaulted along with two other persons. I suffered serious injury to the left side of  my face, head, left ear and back. I was brutally attacked. I identified two or more of my assailants. These are facts they cannot lie as they are recorded. My injuries cannot lie. The assailants were well known football players and this news was well publicised in the papers.  Yet no, one was charged for the offence. Why ? Could it be as simple as I what I have claimed. I was told that our boss got free meals from the club and this was a trade off  while I was at home recovering  I was then told on my return not to make waves as these were prominent people and this was a high profile club. It was too much of an embarrasment. I was told I would be taken care off by the Department so don't claim criminal compensation ? Did I make this all up. I don't think so. There is too much proof to support all this as well. I just acted in good faith on both occassions out of loyalty. I trusted the invisible face of my employer. 

So you see it is time to ask these questions and get some real answers. This page will be further updated as I add the other matters I have in question. I will bring again and again proof  that is undisputable so we can begin to ask what really happened to Carlos Carceller. Why was he short shunted ?