desperate for answers

This forum is for the open and public discussion of Accident Reconstruction topics. This is open to any registered user of the CrashForum.info site. Administrator: Sean Haight Moderators: Wade Bartlett (wade_b), Wes Vandiver (WVandiver), Bruce McNally (actar670)
Post Reply
User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

hello, I'm a mum from Europe,
2 children got involved in a bad head-on collision,

2 years later my daughter, who was the driver is still trvalidating from the accident, she had an open broken leg, left and her arm right was broken on 6 places and her risk too, also an concussion with temporary memory loss, , a cracked rib and a ligamentary sternum injury

my son was unconsious, broken sternum, broken rib, hip comb fracture, perforated small intestine, and a blood shedding on his right hip, thigh to his knee

in the other car, the driver, a woman, had 3 fracures in the left foot, and her husband, passanger, had a broken sternum, 4 broken ribs and 3 facets broken of from vertebrae, also unconsious


in the criminal investigation, there are so many things that gave us questions...

in our country, we drive on the right, but the accident was frontal-right with both...

but many things "changed"

police wrote both cars were damaged all around..
both car were also damaged front but most frontalright

20 months later the police changed it in both frontal damaged, nothing more
and the expert who had to investigate, wrote, our daughter frontalright and the other car frontal(but both cars was the front wheel pushed back, the other driver had the firemen open the door, because it was blocked...

on all the photos the police and the investigator took of the front of the car of our daughter, the photo was bad or shadow in the middle...
the police took no photo of the rim of the wheel on the front of our daughter end we believe, what we see on the photos of the investigator...he drew the wheel...it looks like it, but it's not it...

the investigator went a couple off days after the accident to the hall where the vehicles were...
he took 11 photos of the other car on the outside but the leftside with reflection, (we have a picture where you see scratches on the leftside of the other car)

from the vehicle of our daughter, he took...1...photo, from the front of the wheel, not the side...neither the impact in the car, nothing...

my daughter had memoryloss but little by little most came back...but dr told her she will never remember the whole accident due to the trauma...

my daughter saw the lights suddenly coming to her, she does not remember, if she tried to dodge...(hope I write it correct)
and when she saw the car and the face of the woman...she taught, I'm going to die and braced herself(is this the reason that she had so much broken in her arm?)

the other woman...

the day after the accident, she let her daughter send her statement to the assurance, where she stated that my daughter suddenly deviated., but the woman did not dodge.

the statement ,taken by the police...was taken 27 days after the accident...
now she said that our daughter slowly deviated, not brusk, very gradual, like someone is using its gsm(portable Phone)
and she expected that our daughter would correct her driving...but it was too late, there was a collapse on the side of the other woman, the other woman did not soak...

her husband told he heard his wife say, what are you doing, but did not see the accident...in the assurancestatement, there is mentionned that the husbans...slept...

so we now have 2 different stories from the husband and wife...

when they heard that our daughter let her assurance know that maybe the accident was not on the other side, because she remembered the lights coming to her...
that day, the husband and wife wrote a letter to the police that they heard that "someone" on the place of the accident told first the wife and later in the hospital the man too,
that our daughter would have shouted.."it is all my mistake, I felt asleep..."

so ...4 months after the accident there was an extra investigation of the police, they interrogated
-police
-firemen
-emergency department
-hospital
-nurses
-ambulacedrivers

but also the 2 young men who where first at the place of the accident, before the police(who was not far away)
one stated that the other driver, the woman, said to her husband, "I don't know what happened, but I had to dodge"

so we have now 3 different statements..

and the passenger, the husband wrote in his letter that he rememberd nothing due to his concusion

strange enough, he lost his memory later after the accident while our daughter was getting more back..

our son was temporary in a coma, he slept when the accident happened...

so the police changed their statement and was different from the investigator...
the investigator said he would draw the situation sketch but never did,

so when the lawsuit started, there was a delay because there must Always be a situation sketch,
the police and the investigator got 6 monthes to do so..
and only 1.5 month before the trial...

and both did not draw the trees on the side of the lane of the other woman..

the left side of the car of the other woman, we saw sratches, the investigator used reflection to hide this, the police used a little light pointing to the bottim of the car so there was only darkness to see on the left side..

also was on the roof on the left al little whole where there was something on, to hide it, on the right side, the corner of the roof was damaged, also on the back from debris,also her light on the back on the right side, we believe it was damaged

I think she turned around...
on the roof of our daughter there was also a hole, they used a paper to hide it..
the investigator had to mention ALL damage due to the accident, but he never did...

he mentionned, no brake tracks, nothing more, nothing about oil or something other,

he said it was our daughter who was responsible for the accodent, he said this, because the debris was on the other lane, and the position of the cars...

we tried that our photos would be seen by the Judge but something went terrible wrong...
we think because the lawyer of our daughter gave no conclusions in advance, so all he told the Judge is not excisting...
so our photos of the accident were not seen by the Judge...

on the trial, the other driver, told she dodge to the right, the Judge asked about it again, nothing is written by somebody that the driver said this before the Judge, no evidence, nothing...

so, there were 8 cops from the same bureau, the head-officer included...45 minutes later, still no one let the other woman take the alcoholtest...
there were phones from the policeofficers to the police prosecutor and this man said an alcoholtest and a investigator.

still 10 minutes went by, and when the ambulace with the couple left to the hospital, than the order came to 2 other cops on the place, to take the alcoholtest from the drivers(45 minutes after the accident)...

the other ambulances with our son and daughter could not yet leave because our son was critical...and they had to stabilize him, they were brought to an other hospital...

and the 2 officers who had to take the alcoholtest, did not take the test from the other woman, only in her left foot inguired(she was in a hospital 8 minutes from the place of accident), no...the went after our daughter,badly hurt, bleeding from an open fracture of her leg, 7 fractures in right arm/risk, concussion, cracked rib and a ligamentary sternum injury...

when she was rolled out of the ambulance, still in the hallway of the hospital, not yet in the ER, the 2 offices obligated our daughter to blow...she had trouble breathing due to the pain...and yet, this 2 offices made her blow 2 times more, she had not taken alcohol..

but why??? why did they not say, to the dr, take blood...it was inhuman to do....

and than, those 2 officers went off to the other hospital, to the other drivern the woman, to let her blow the alcoholtest...

24 km, and yet, those 2 officers did 1 hour and 23 minutes over this traject...far too long...where wee they...

the other woman had her alcoholtest done...2hours and 58 minutes after the accident...

in the court, by accident, she told, that they were coming from a party from an anniversary of her brother-in-law...
nobody mentionned this on any paper...
not the Judge, not the lawyer of our daughter asked to write this down that the woman said this in court...


so..in all that paperwork from 2 years, ther is nothing, nothing to defend our daughter...

our daughter is convicted as the driver who made this accident happen,
she has the lightes fines to pay...

but why did the lawyer did this?not giving conclusions before with our photos, he is already our second lawyer,

we are going to appeal but..the assurance will only pay this..if our daughter wins this..and wins the civilian case too...

the investigator took the first photo with his drone..heigth 39 meters, while the drone was still on the ground???
on this first photo, you can see debris on the side of the lane of our daughter, on the bicycle path,
on the second photo with the drone , the debris is gone, and there is a white sack of the firemen...

on 1 of the first accidentphotos of the police, you can see debris on the lane of our daughter, on the bicycle path but also on the grass, this debris is spreaded like someone cirkeld around(turned around)
but most of the photos are taken with lights shining so it is hard to see

when they noticed that we were taking photos, the firemen pointed with their big light to us, you can see this on the circle on the photo, and the photo turned blue...

but, you can see that then their were several policemen on the lane of our daughter en in the middle of the road...
on photos you can see debris is changed from lane..

there was a decorative cover of the wheel from our daughter, on the other lane, 5 minutes later, there was debris from the other vehicle and later, the cover of the wheel was moved before the car of our daughter, it was replaced by debris from the other woman...
where we were standing, we saw tracks in the grass beside the lane of the other woman, between the trees...
a fireman came to place the door of the car of our daughter on these tracks and came to place the second door too...
on the field beside the grass there is debris too...

we think both cars circled around(on the other side in the grass there are also marks but many cars drove there...normally, they should not, because the investigator for the police was not yet there...

the other car moved(so said the other woman) backwards and than to the other lane, our daughter "swerved" to the other lane and turned 1/4
on one photo we see dark marks after the other car on the lane of our daughter..

on the policephotos and the photos of the investigator, there is Always shadow on both sides of the other car, only one side next to the car of our daughter

and yet, on our photos it is not so dark,policephotos are printed on normal paper, not photopaper, a printed copy is Always black/white not color, so we did have to take photos with our Phone..

we tried to have an investigator to defend our daughter, we heard later that he worked standard for the assurance...
he let our daughter came from the bicycle path from the side of the other woman, so from the left, and the other investigator said from the right...
one said ompact daughter 35, the other woman 31, and the other investigator said both 46...

and yet, both said our daughter was wrong...and yet their pc-crash was not 100%


how many % may an investigator be wrong with pc-crash?

also we don't understand, the other car had a little hole in the door, due to accident, and yet 1 small fold in the rim of the other party
and yet, in the rim of the wheel of our daughter, there are 2 heavy indentations...

can this be from 1 accident?
did they hit a tree or an electricity pole?

strange is that our daughter remembers that she had 4 same ties...and yet, difficult to see, but the front ties and the back ties are not the same..

and the other woman...also different ties on the front and the back...

it is also difficult to see the profiles on the wheels, dark, shadow, blurded...


on 1 picture you can see that the firemen threw white stuff on the grass, =/- 80meters away...

also when I searched for pictures, I found pictures from 4 months after the accident....you can see an oblique line, strange enough, this is where 2 policecars and tow truck stand...
on 1 photo you can see the investigator placed a fake policecar on this line, you can see the side window is not correct...

when you see the other way, the investigator forgot to draw the shadow of a tree...

we don't know what is right or wrong but never believe the accident happened like the other woman said,
we have prove they placed and replaced debrit...also the damage on the cars, especially the other car, who is damaged on all sides and roof..
this damage is not how she said the accident happenend...

can somebody please "explain" marks, damage to the cars?

User avatar
mchenrysoftware
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:49 pm
First Name: brian
Last Name: mchenry

Re: desperate for answers

Post by mchenrysoftware »

i am sorry for your situation. Your long description and details are at times hard to follow.
Where in Europe are you located? Are there not any local experts who can help?
If you provide where you are located perhaps someone on this forum knows someone in that area.

The following is our response and anyone seeking an experts help in a collision may benefit from this list:
  • Where in Europe are you located? Are there not any local experts who can help?
    If you provide where you are located perhaps someone on this forum knows someone in that area.

    The following is a list which if you find a local expert you should provide to them as it contains ideas for proper evaluation of the situation:
    Also, if you provide more information, some of the many experts on this forum might be able to assist you:
    • post up pictures of exterior damage to the vehicles
    • you mentioned drone pics? post those
    • any police report? crash diagrams? post those
    • you also mentioned "how many % may an investigator be wrong with pc-crash?"
      • did the police or some expert in your case use pc-crash?
        • if so, first the answer to that question is 'it depends'.
          pc-crash is a momentum based simulation solution and so subject to momentum limitations and simplifying assumptions
          In several cases we have been able to make a singular change in inputs (the point and angle of momentum exchange') and change the results of a pc-crash simulation used as the basis for an opinion by an expert to the opposite opinion
          One example was a 'who's on the wrong side of the road' crash, see below
    You should obtain the inputs and the diagrams from any pc-crash simulation used in your case.
    You should also demand you get the input file in electronic form for ANY simulation/animation so an expert can review all inputs and rerun the simulation.
    Some inputs may not be included in the run summary
    • In most courts in the USA the inputs for any simulation or animation must be provided in electronic form.
      This allows the other side to rerun the simulation to be sure all inputs are produced so they can be checked
      • weights? specifications? tire properties? values for friction? friction zones? terrain slopes? source of terrain information?
      • proper dimensions for evidence location and ability to compare that to the simulation/animation?
      • if animation, it is physically possible and does it obey Newton's Laws?
        • the electronic inputs provide the changes in movement so the speeds/approx accelerations can be calculated
      • And do the graphics/video created match the inputs provided?
        • we have cases where inputs (in paper form) and graphics/video provided looked OK however once we obtained in electronic form we found that the printed paper inputs where different than the electronic inputs and did NOT produce the video/graphics! (and so the case settled shortly thereafter!
here are some links with additional information: Here is a comparison of two pc-crash runs in a case where an expert used pc-crash as the basis for the expert option of who was on the wrong side of the road.
We demonstrated that pc-crash did NOT prove who was on the wrong side of the road:
The experts pc-crash reconstruction was as follows:
wrong side 2.png
Putting the vehicle in proper lane and a making a minor change in the pc-crash 'point of momentum exchange' could have proven the vehicle was in its proper lane!:
wrong side 1.png
NOTE: the picture size on this forum is limited, for a full size picture please see Repost of this response

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

I thought I added the pictures but don't see them, try again,
"experts...
first one worked for the police...bad pictures, some corners no pictures taken, reflection on pictures, did not mention what damages were on the car, did not take picture from speed other car or did not mention why he couldn't, other woman said 70km/h, daughter was seen on photo, 82
they could find more if the EDR or how you call it, what connected to a computer to find more information...not done,
about tracks or oil or whatever...he only mentionned...no brake tracks..
did not mention the mud on the ront wheel right, from the other car,
he used pc crash, said our daughter was coming from the right, from her lanse...very slowly...

he "repeated" the information from the other woman...

the second expert was asked by the lawyer from our daughter, after, we found out he was the regular expert from our assurancecompagny...
he made a little video and a photo that our daughter was already on the other lane, coming from the bicycle path(direction), a little from left so...
his little video is 2 cars who are entangled togheter ans go different directions...but not how the accident happened!it was a bonus for the other driver...

never tried the memory of our daughter on pc-crash, was very rude...
even the lawyer was shocked and said it was maybe a good idea to ask another lawyer for a second opinion..she said this twice(was she trying to get another expert? we don't know)

I wrote when we heard that our daughter was accused, to an expert, well known, write books, etc...he never answered

so, I wrote to another expert....the whole story, and he accepted, I had to send all, the pictures, the case, everything, before I gathered it together, I got an email back
the expert became suddenly ill....
and mentionned, there was no need that I send everything up to him, he hoped we could find another expert who would take the case...


we changed from lawyer, and he would provide(?) an axpert, strangely, it was the first one I wrote and never wrote back, but this man had name in the expertfield, so we hoped finnaley find the truth...

if he would do pc-crash, and calculcations etc, we had to pay him because the assurance would not pay for a second expert...

but all those strange things, police what changed their information, and also not the same as the expert, and hiding the damage, there was something going on, but what??

so we decided to pay this expert, to know the the truth

sadly...he repeated the information from the other woman, did not react on our photos, did not mention how they became damaged around and on the roof, did not mention the mud...


he said..the debris is on the other lane and the positions...so our daughter was responsable..

I mentionned to the lawyer(we never saw the expert) that the expert had a case...the other woman was driving on the wrong side and tried to correct to her side and the other driver on the right lane, tried to dodge, so the debris ended on the other lane and the driver who was riding on the wrong side and tried to correct was responsable...
the expert let the lawyer know, that there was a witness....
this cas is on his website, there was not mentionned that tere was a witness,
also...if there is no witness, will this say there is no chance it happened like that...


this expert took never our money but never did pc-crash, he repeated...what the other woman said...

there is something high sensitive on this case and if you don't mind, I would like not to mention the country "yet" also what is "so sensitive" on this case..

I will try to add pictures

also, THANK YOU VERY MUCH...

verschil voorband tegenpartij.jpg
brokstukken en gewas overkant , zijde Kelly.jpg
rondcirkelende stukken aan overkant.jpg
foto drone op de grond en handcamera deskundige komen niet overeen en ingekleurd.jpg

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

I hope I can post now, got "general problem"

I thought I added the pictures but don't see them, try again,
"experts...
first one worked for the police...bad pictures, some corners no pictures taken, reflection on pictures, did not mention what damages were on the car, did not take picture from speed other car or did not mention why he couldn't, other woman said 70km/h, daughter was seen on photo, 82
they could find more if the EDR or how you call it, what connected to a computer to find more information...not done,
about tracks or oil or whatever...he only mentionned...no brake tracks..
did not mention the mud on the front wheel right, from the other car,
he used pc crash, said our daughter was coming from the right, from her lane...very slowly...
the other driver stated in her assuranceletter by her daughter that our daughter suddenly deviated, in het statement to the police, 27 days or so, later, she said our daughter moved very slowely, like she was looking to her gps, not suddenly,...
the second young man who was first by the cars, before the police, stated that she sais:"I don't know what happened but she had to dodge
expert police,
he "repeated" the information from the other woman...

the second expert was asked by the lawyer from our daughter, after, we found out he was the regular expert from our assurancecompagny...(assurances like to pay to avoid a long trial)
he made a little video and a photo that our daughter was already on the other lane, coming from the bicycle path(direction), a little from left so...
his little video is 2 cars who are entangled togheter and go different directions...but not how the accident happened!it was a bonus for the other driver...

never tried the memory of our daughter on pc-crash, was very rude...
even the lawyer was shocked and said it was maybe a good idea to ask another lawyer for a second opinion..she said this twice(was she trying to get another expert? we don't know)

I wrote when we heard that our daughter was accused, to an expert, well known, write books, etc...he never answered

so, I wrote to another expert....the whole story, and he accepted, I had to send all, the pictures, the case, everything, before I gathered it together, I got an email back
the expert became suddenly ill....
and mentionned, there was no need that I send everything up to him, he hoped we could find another expert, who would take the case...


we changed from lawyer, and he would provide(?) an axpert, strangely, it was the first one I wrote and never wrote back, but this man had name in the expertfield, so we hoped finnaly find the truth...

if he would do pc-crash, and calculcations etc, we had to pay him because the assurance would not pay for a second expert...

but all those strange things, police what changed their information, and also not the same as the expert, and hiding the damage, there was something going on, but what??

so we decided to pay this expert, to know the the truth

sadly...he repeated the information from the other woman, did not react on our photos, did not mention how they became damaged around and on the roof, did not mention the mud...


he said..the debris is on the other lane and the positions...so our daughter was responsable..

I mentionned to the lawyer(we never saw the expert) that the expert had once a case...the other woman was driving on the wrong side and tried to correct to her side and the other driver on the right lane, tried to dodge, so the debris ended on the other lane and the driver who was riding on the wrong side and tried to correct was responsable...
the expert let the lawyer know, that there was than a witness....
this case is on his website, and yet, there was not mentionned that there was a witness,
also...if there is no witness, will this say there is no chance it happened like that...


this expert took never our money but never did pc-crash, he repeated...what the other woman said...

there is something high sensitive on this case and if you don't mind, I would like not to mention the country "yet" also what is "so sensitive" on this case..

I will try to add pictures
1 and 2 is defense, 3 is expert police.jpg
pdf photo received from the newspaper.jpg
photo expert defense.jpg
photo expert defense2.jpg

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

mchenrysoftware wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:56 pm i am sorry for your situation. Your long description and details are at times hard to follow.
Where in Europe are you located? Are there not any local experts who can help?
If you provide where you are located perhaps someone on this forum knows someone in that area.

The following is our response and anyone seeking an experts help in a collision may benefit from this list:
  • Where in Europe are you located? Are there not any local experts who can help?
    If you provide where you are located perhaps someone on this forum knows someone in that area.

    The following is a list which if you find a local expert you should provide to them as it contains ideas for proper evaluation of the situation:
    Also, if you provide more information, some of the many experts on this forum might be able to assist you:
    • post up pictures of exterior damage to the vehicles
    • you mentioned drone pics? post those
    • any police report? crash diagrams? post those
    • you also mentioned "how many % may an investigator be wrong with pc-crash?"
      • did the police or some expert in your case use pc-crash?
        • if so, first the answer to that question is 'it depends'.
          pc-crash is a momentum based simulation solution and so subject to momentum limitations and simplifying assumptions
          In several cases we have been able to make a singular change in inputs (the point and angle of momentum exchange') and change the results of a pc-crash simulation used as the basis for an opinion by an expert to the opposite opinion
          One example was a 'who's on the wrong side of the road' crash, see below
    You should obtain the inputs and the diagrams from any pc-crash simulation used in your case.
    You should also demand you get the input file in electronic form for ANY simulation/animation so an expert can review all inputs and rerun the simulation.
    Some inputs may not be included in the run summary
    • In most courts in the USA the inputs for any simulation or animation must be provided in electronic form.
      This allows the other side to rerun the simulation to be sure all inputs are produced so they can be checked
      • weights? specifications? tire properties? values for friction? friction zones? terrain slopes? source of terrain information?
      • proper dimensions for evidence location and ability to compare that to the simulation/animation?
      • if animation, it is physically possible and does it obey Newton's Laws?
        • the electronic inputs provide the changes in movement so the speeds/approx accelerations can be calculated
      • And do the graphics/video created match the inputs provided?
        • we have cases where inputs (in paper form) and graphics/video provided looked OK however once we obtained in electronic form we found that the printed paper inputs where different than the electronic inputs and did NOT produce the video/graphics! (and so the case settled shortly thereafter!
here are some links with additional information: Here is a comparison of two pc-crash runs in a case where an expert used pc-crash as the basis for the expert option of who was on the wrong side of the road.
We demonstrated that pc-crash did NOT prove who was on the wrong side of the road:
The experts pc-crash reconstruction was as follows:
wrong side 2.png
Putting the vehicle in proper lane and a making a minor change in the pc-crash 'point of momentum exchange' could have proven the vehicle was in its proper lane!:
wrong side 1.png
NOTE: the picture size on this forum is limited, for a full size picture please see Repost of this response

troubles with answering,
also how can I add photos

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

can't get on the forum for long time
1 and 2 is defense, 3 is expert police.jpg

User avatar
mchenrysoftware
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:49 pm
First Name: brian
Last Name: mchenry

Re: desperate for answers

Post by mchenrysoftware »

i will look at what you sent
i have a technical support link where you can upload files of any size and only I can see them and i will keep all items confidential
Upload any reports and pictures
Also if you have pc-crash simulation inputs (files end with .PRO) please send them
You should ask anyone who has done a pc-crash simulation to provide you with their .PRO file (and also their output report from pc-crash)
here is the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/request/Deqatn5wlHJJ3yUrTXjh

Brian

User avatar
uwef_de
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 2:31 am
First Name: Uwe
Last Name: Fuerbeth
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: desperate for answers

Post by uwef_de »

as my previous speaker stated, it is sometimes hard to follow. The best way would be for you to write down (shortly e.g. with dashes) the concrete questions you have. But only those questions, which we as technicians / accident reconstruction engineers can answer, please (e.g. it is not our/my job to answer questions about alcohol testing). For answering your concrete questions we would need high (best) resolution pictures from all car damages, the accident scene, sketches and PC-Crash files.
If you want to leave these materials to us, we could use our cloud upload. For that, please send me an email.

Uwe

User avatar
mchenrysoftware
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:49 pm
First Name: brian
Last Name: mchenry

Re: desperate for answers

Post by mchenrysoftware »

this picture seems to show where the area of contact was and so begs question:
  • which vehicle had this lane as the proper lane of travel?
  • Was your daughter headed towards the camera position or the other way?
  • What is the make/model/year of the two vehicles (I may do some exploratory simulation demonstrations)
POI.png
The RF damage to the Renault vs. what damage to the Ford?
RF damage.png
Obviously getting more evidence and more documentation is what is required to properly determine
And to repeat:
  • Use this link DropBox link for McHenry Technical Support for uploading police report, photos, actual documentation of any pc-crash simulations performed...can be files of any size (and only I can see files you upload and will keep them confidential)

User avatar
mchenrysoftware
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:49 pm
First Name: brian
Last Name: mchenry

Re: desperate for answers

Post by mchenrysoftware »

In doing another reread of the narrative posted and the additional photos posted, the following are some comments:
  • "the other woman was driving on the wrong side and tried to correct to her side and the other driver on the right lane, tried to dodge, so the debris ended on the other lane and the driver who was riding on the wrong side and tried to correct was responsible..."
i am reminded of a driving story told to me by my late uncle Ken as a warning when driving...
  • One of his first driving experiences some 75+ years ago (he passed recently at 90+ years old)
    As a young driver he was driving down the road in rural Maine and saw a vehicle on his side of the road.
    He decided to go to the other lane to pass the vehicle on the wrong side of the road.
    The other driver at the last minute came back over to his proper lane of travel and they collided.
    The police charged my uncle with being on the wrong side of the road and causing the crash.
    The police can only go by 'where is the evidence' although the other driver was the 'town drunk' and drunk at the time (this was in rural Maine)
    Studies have shown that intoxicated people head 'towards the light' so that is why trying to swerve around someone traveling in your lane may make them come back 'to the light' and collide with you and make it appear you are to blame.
    it is also why at some crash sites all lit up with emergency vehicles that they sometimes 'attract' intoxicated drivers who 'head towards the light' and crash into the rescue vehicles and cause further carnage.
The main point of this is that the police depend on the evidence and if all the evidence shows a collision in one lane, the person in the wrong lane is charged as your daughter was charged.

Why didn't the police download the EDRs in each vehicle?
  • you haven't indicated the make/model/year of each vehicle to determine if the vehicles had any information.
  • Some EDRs have information for 5 seconds prior to the crash.
  • As a minimum why didn't the expert your insurance company hire read the EDR on your daughters vehicle since it is an easy process
You have not uploaded all photos. In your narrative you mention pictures with police cars, etc
see link above for secure place to upload them.
And also if you have them, please send the pc-crash inputs and report and animation and any police and expert reports.
Notes on the scenario that you mention:
  • NOTE: Your scenario puts the white vehicle in the wrong lane but helps explain a possible reason why.
    • The other vehicle was in your daughter's lane and so she swerved left. They crashed in the other vehicles lane the local law may make it your daughters fault even if you can prove the swerve left by your daughter was due to the other driver.
    As a quick demonstration, i did a msmac3D simulation of two somewhat similar vehicles on the scene w/pc-crash results you posted earlier in this thread
    In this quick preliminary demonstration i demonstrate if the other vehicle came back from the opposite lane you still can match the approximate rest positions of the vehicles
    • pc-crash includes a MAJOR simplifying assumption of an "instantaneous exchange of momentum" during a crash which relies on a user set arbitrary and subjective "point of maximum engagement".
      • Other programs which include this simplifying assumption are virtual-crash and planar impact models
      • These types of programs make getting the results you want and need easy by a judicious choice of "Point of instantaneous momentum exchange", but are the results scientifically sound and correct?
      • Do the speeds and orientations of the subject vehicle "AT IMPACT" produce a match of the "point of momentum exchange" AND a correlation of the damage?
      • Having a simulation program which included the modeling of the damage forces and moments during the crash provides an answer to that addition KEY question.
      • Actual crashes occur over 100-200 milliseconds with forces and moments acting along and during the entire crush interface/interaction
    • If we were able to obtain the police/others pc-crash inputs (.PRO file and/or printed outputs) we probably could demonstrate that this scenario can also be "proven" with pc-crash by using a different arbitrary and subjective "point of maximum engagement"
    • With msmac3D simulation you actually mathematically crash the vehicles into one another including calculating the forces and moments of the crush interface and interaction for every millisecond during the 100-200 millisecond crush interaction.
    The video below simply demonstrates the evidence might be matched in either scenario
    To decide which fits best one must do a thorough examination of ALL he evidence as it might reveal which scenario best matches ALL the evidence.
    • EVIDENCE/DATA REQUIRED IF AVAILABLE:
      • The weights, make/model/years, scene information,
      • Damage photos/estimates/areas on each vehicle, extents
      • scene photos and measurements, EDR outputs, etc.
      • MAIN POINT: An expert cannot simply state that pc-crash 'proved' a single scenario without examining the other possible scenario and/or using a simulation program which Models the crushing of the vehicles and damage interaction to see if the two scenarios might allow determining which scenario best matches the evidence.
      • Adding the EDR data to the puzzle might also help clarify which vehicle did what in the 5 secs of pre-impact (if available)
        • if EDR data was available (make/model/year) from either/both vehicles it begs the question: WHY didn't the police read the EDR data?
    THE VIDEO BELOW IT IS A QUICK PRELIMINARY DEMONSTRATION!
    • NOTE: This also still puts the white vehicle in the wrong lane but helps explain a possible reason why.
      • the other vehicle in the white vehicle's lane and so the white vehicle swerved left and they crashed in the other vehicles lane the local law may make it your daughters fault even if you can prove the swerve left by your daughter was due to the other driver.
      This is merely as a demonstration that the other vehicle might have been coming back into its proper lane.
    POI v POR msmac3D.jpg

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

thank you so much,
I could not log in for long time, thought I was blocked, ,
I had a text ready and when I tried to submit, it showed up I had to login, but I did, maybe too long time,
I'll try again tommorow
the white car was our daughter, on the other lane
I already can say, the impacts don't fit and both cars , the other more, full around...
both cars were damaged on the roofs

User avatar
Mum
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:46 pm
First Name: Carina
Last Name: Moors

Re: desperate for answers

Post by Mum »

Thank you so much for your reaction, last night it was past midnight,
it was again a long text so when I tried to submit my answer, it said: log in (again) and all was gone..
so...police and investigator did not mention any
-fluids of oil, gasoline or whatever...the fuel valve of the car of our daughter was open, they closed it, never mentionned it, the back window was pushed a little outside the car, the firemen put it back, not mentionned,
on the roof of the other car was a valve opened, they closed it, not mentionned.
-no marks, skid marks, no scratches or anything,
they just said, no brake marks and the debris is on the other lane and the position of the cars...

but..
the police just once mentionned the truth: both cars were damaged all around
this is not like the other driver said: frontal, he was pushed away a little back and a little aside to the other lane, he says he was driving in his lane on the right,
and says the white car, our daughter was riding very slowely to the other lane, but..
in the assurance he says that she came suddenly to the other lane,
our daughter what had first amnesia, a lot came back but not all,
she remembers that the lights of the other car came toward to her and she thought:"now, I'm going to die" and braced herself...her right arm/risk was multiple broken and left leg broken open wound an other things but those 2 matter..
the other driver only left foot broken,
both passengers broke sternum, but my son had also fracture of his right hip and perforation of his intestine..they had also other things wounded.

on our pictures we see also the debris and scratches on the road but when you zoom in, you see in the middle of the road oil and scratches too..
when they saw we took pictures, the firemen put the big light on us so we were blinded, but we managed to take 2 pictures, and you can see that 4 policemen are standing in the middle of the roads where oil and scratches are..
it's all about the passenger who was an ex.. and a lot of his ex partners showed up...
all the big lights were shining in the middle on the road and on the lane of our daughter, they put a little light that you can carry, they let the light shine on the road, not on the cars, another was put to shine on the family..
and the paramedics had to work with a little lamp on their head, they did not put a light aside him to help him..why???

pictures of the other car, almost always with shadow on both sides, why?
what did they see on the lane of our daughter??

somebody mentionned to look at the oil in the middle between the 2 lanes..when you zoom in on our picture you still can see some..
but the bright lights forbid to see marks on the other lane of our daughter..
I read from an American investigator that they have to look good because cars can hit twice when they turn around or hit something else, on the right there where little trees..
we see on our pictures on the grass beside the lane of the other driver where the white car is, but on the left, marks from spinning around,
on the other side, the grass beside the lane of our daughter the lights shine bright so hard to see,

on pictures of the drone, you can see like a car turned around a a hole in the grass beside the lane of the car of our daughter,
beside the lane, on the grass of the other driver, we thought to see "marks" but the firemen came to put there the 2 doors of the car of our daughter..
the driver only had to blow for alcohol after 3 hours while 2 cops followed our daughter badly hurt and who had to have emergancy operation that night, they let her blow 3x times because she could not because she had too much pain on the chest too..they could take a bloodexaple but did not..

also, on our first picture you can see in the middle, on both lanes a "white powder", I read somewhere this is like "dust" from the brakes, but can't find it again.
the police or investigator failed to mention that both cars had ABS..
there was a picture taken of the speed of our daughter but not of the other driver..
and did not mention why not,
this investigator mentionned that same year in the papers that people should always
do "the reading" of the car, so you know what happened, even if the car is a pert totale, full crashed.......... only this time...he did not..
he did not mention all about the car, weight etc of our daughter, only from the other car...

pictures
pictures of the police are pictures on a regular typing paper, not flat but with little holes in it..
you may take pictures with your mobile phone..
we asked for original pictures...they printed it again on typing paper but with the hour above...
the investigator took 8 pictures in 2 minutes with his handcamera,
and with the drone he took 21 pictures in 4 minutes...bad light...
the dronepictures...
he mentionned that he "placed" the cars on airpictures but he took pictures with the drone??
you can see the cars are fake because the other car has no decorative lids,
also, the rim of the car of our daughter has 2 heavy impacts, still, no hole in her door, only damaged from opening too far and still, there was the side front on the right,
the other car had a hole in the door and missed the side front of the car...
yet they say, the investigator says, the other car was frontal, our daughter frontal right
both cars have 2 pairs of different tires, while our daughter always thought to have 4 the same tires..

the car of our daughter/white car, was damaged in the front more as the other but both also right,
both cars were the roofs damaged, on the roof of our daughter they put a paper what was in the car,
on the roof of the other car, theu put something too but the other car was the roof pushed in a little where the passenger was sitting, also on the side of the roof in the middle right, and the right corner of the roof..
they never mentionned this...
the other car, we think was also on the right site of the car damaged, not much, but the rear end light was broken we think, investigator drawned on his dronepictures, or fake on his handcamera, on the policephoto you see the light is damaged..
we think she turned around and under the light we see on our photo a little pushed in
on the back and left of the back you see, the car was damaged from little flying debris,
on the left back side and left back door, damaged of flying debris..
we think also scratches on the left door, and the tire of the left forside, is scratched, also the rubber..
-the car of our daughter on the left corner , the bumper of the car is touched,
also the bumper on the right on the rear end is a litlle com off the car, so we think the back of the cars lifted...
we think also 2 cars, on the right back, the suspension of both cars broke..

the investigator never came back the next day to take a new picture of the road to look for marks but he only came to see the cars 4 days later,
on his picture with his handcamera both cars were full of oil and gasoline, rubbed by the firemen, but 4 days later, especially the other car, looked cleaned...
he took 11 pictures of the other car, but not of the roof, not of the rear end,
on the left with reflection, on the right dark picture of shadow

but he took 1...yes...1 picture of the outside of the car of our daughter!!
the picture was...of the front of the right tire...because a piece of the other car was there..
he never took a picture of the front of the car to see how much the car was damaged or where she was hit in the front..
he took a few pictures of the inside of the car, full of the debris...but what it was about ..
are the decorative covers of the wheels...of the other car, put in the car of our daughter,
even one looked "faked", the color does not match..

both cars looked hit in the middle of the front..

debris

when you look at the picture you think, debris on the other lane, the cars like that..
but the damage does not much with how the other driver said it happened,
even on policepictures, you can see they added debris,
or a decorative cover of the wheel of our daughter was further away, they put it between the debris befor the car..
the fire hose also pulled the debris to the white car of our daughter,
a policeman with debris under his foot, this debris will also change lanes..

on our first picture, you can see debris under the wheels of the firetruck, later it is also changed of lanes..
on a policepicture, you see debris in a cirkling way on the other lane(of our daughter), even on the grass beside,
on the other side, debris in the field beside the grass, beside the lane of the other driver.., and no debris on the grass of the other driver??

our son "changed",
our daughter had already 5 operations, needs 2 to get rid of the iron inside,
but bones are still not healed completly,
so I'm afraid she needs a bone transplantion to heal..
she lost her job...

we have now a third lawyer, have to pay ourselfs,
the second on the trial, he did not give his conclusions before the trial,
we did not know, after the trial we knew...
our daughter was sentenced, the least to pay, no loosing of driverlicense..
but the damage to her...
I can't give up...
there is so much wrong...

User avatar
mchenrysoftware
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:49 pm
First Name: brian
Last Name: mchenry

Re: desperate for answers

Post by mchenrysoftware »

I am sorry for the issues you are having and hope your children have a full recovery after this most difficult time.
In your description you include a lot of accusations about missed or faked evidence and other things
  • for example the light coming on you say to blind you, thinking differently: what it they were actually trying to light up the scene for you to take pictures?
Obviously some or none or all of what you say and think think may be true.
Crash reconstruction relies on facts and evidence!
Your attorney should let you know about the local laws since if your daughter swerved at the last moment to the other side to avoid a crash in her lane while at the same time the other driver swerved from the wrong lane but returned to their lane of travel at the time of impact, your daughter may be responsible even if you prove she was swerving to avoid the crash.
It depends on the local laws and whether you can definitively prove that the police assumption is incorrect.
Main point is that to prove things will require a lot of time, effort and money on your part and may not result in justice being served.

If you'd like someone to review your crash on this forum in more detail, you need to post up or send all the photos since you mention a lot of photos:
You said in this latest post:
  1. we managed to take 2 pictures, and you can see that 4 policemen are standing in the middle of the roads where oil and scratches are..
  2. there was a picture taken of the speed of our daughter but not of the other driver..
  3. pictures by the police
  4. the investigator took 8 pictures in 2 minutes with his hand camera,he took 11 pictures of the other car, but not of the roof, not of the rear end, 1 picture of the outside of the car of our daughter
  5. drone pictures...he took 21 pictures in 4 minutes...bad light...
Please post up the photos or send them.

Did police make any measurements of final resting positions? A scaled scene diagram?
Have you asked for the actual pc-crash input files used by police and then by the investigator you described in a prior post who also did a pc-crash simulation for you?

Most of the questions you have posted up are things your local investigator/reconstructionist should have been able to answer and consider.

A couple responses to minor points you said:
  • "Both cars were the roofs damaged"
    • The roof damage was probably post impact extraction of the passengers from the vehicle. They cut the pillars and peel back the top to get easy access to injured parties. The roof damage probably had nothing to do with the crash.
    2) "On our first picture you can see in the middle, on both lanes a "white powder", I read somewhere this is like "dust" from the brakes, but can't find it again"
    • I doubt brake dust. Brake dust is normally brown or gray (heat of brakes cooks any dust), and not white. Police or fire departments in response to the crash spray sometimes foam or other material to cover any gas or other possible flammable materials from the vehicles.
      That is probably what you see
  • "The police just once mentioned the truth: both cars were damaged all around"
    • From the pictures you have sent the main damage related to the crash was to the fronts of each vehicle.
      There most likely was no sideslap damage or any other areas of the vehicle that might have been damaged after the primary impact.
      Debris scratches are not considered crash damage for the purposes of crash reconstruction.
      You mentioned trees: A diagram with the location of the trees relative to the positions of rest of the vehicles is required to see if either vehicle with what might be tree induced damage might have been in proximity to the trees.
The main point of this response is to let you know that sometimes you need to simply accept the situation and move on.
If the police were actually out to cover up the cause of this crash then you will have a very difficult time proving otherwise.

If your daughter swerved to the improper lane to avoid a collision with a vehicle in her lane and that vehicle also swerved such that all the debris and impact were in the opposing lane, then you may be limited by local laws and/or limitation of the documentation of the crash to prove your case.

Unfortunately sometimes it is extremely difficult to conclusively prove your scenario with the limitation of the evidence you have.

I am sorry for the issue you are having.

Post Reply