One of the cousins hit a man, the other went to jail. His defenders say it is wrong
Eight teams of experts decided that Krystian Ś. did not hit a man at a pedestrian crossing. Team ninth had a different opinion, although there were no dents typical of such situations on the car. Ten years after the accident and five years after the final conviction, the court is looking at the case again.
March 11, 2011, the intersection of Kaliska and Młodych in the center of Turka, in Greater Poland. The action of the services is underway. Onlookers gather around the dark green Nissan. The car has a broken windshield, damaged headlights. Investigators find out: the driver, then 20-year-old Rafał T., hit a pedestrian, drove a few dozen meters and hit the lantern and a tree. The lamp pole fell over.
The 55-year-old man died.
In the course of police activities, a man who was nearby at the time of the accident says that a pedestrian who died on the seat belts had previously been hit by another car, a dark convertible.
The car is a sporty Audi TT. It was headed by 19-year-old Krystian. The policemen go to his house. Krystian is eating breakfast at the moment. The car he used to drive his brother to school is in front of the building. The engine is still warm.
Officers watch them closely. In the memo, they write down that the convertible has no damage that would indicate that its driver had hit a pedestrian several dozen minutes earlier. Moreover, it is covered with dust, which may indicate that not only did it not hit a person, but not even touch them.
Four and a half years later, on September 18, 2015, Krystian Ś. despite four expert opinions who have ruled out that he was involved in the accident, he will be convicted of hitting a man at a pedestrian crossing. One expert opinion and one witness statement will be decisive. After the final decision, four more expert opinions will be prepared, which will exclude the participation of Ś. in case of.
The convicted person has been in prison for six months. On Friday, the Court of Appeal in Poznań will review this case again, although the sentence from six years ago had already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Read without limits
Access this article and other special content. Free