Bella Gelfand

Berlin, 10.04.2019

The driver knock down my mother to death only because he is at the age when his reaction to what is happening on the road is approximately zero. Especially in the evening, a fortiori in the rain, a fortiori in a bend, when the review is narrowed.

After all, everyone understands: if he had not been driving at that time, in that place on the road, mother would have been alive. She would be alive if, in his place, in the same car in the same place, at the same time, another driver turned, for example me.

Mom never crossed the road at a red traffic light. I have seen many times: she comes to a traffic light, to green, but she stands, waiting for a new green, "fresh". She does not go if doesn’t know how long this one burned, maybe it will change to red now. Or she doesn’t, because knows : it will soon change to red.

How should I understand the driver, who is over 80 years old, who killed my mother? After all, for sure, I’m more than sure, the last 10 years, relatives and friends said: “Stop drive a car! Then you scratched, there you did not see a traffic light, there - a cyclist. It will end badly!”. But he driven a car all his life, used to, loves the car, loves himself and the movement in it. I would not be surprised if he continues to drive now. I won’t be surprised because he is lying. He lied to the police along with a fellow traveler, honing the details of the murder in his favor, even before the police arrived. He lied to a lawyer and he actively helps him: he tells how to lie even better, how to lie correctly, how to lie perfectly.

Once again: Mom never crossed the road to a red light: neither in winter, nor in summer, nor in rain, nor in drought. Even when her “fresh” green lighted up, she watched that all the cars had stopped, and then she crossed.

In 1995, we moved to Germany from a country where cars drive red. Remembering this, she was hyper-careful, she went too far with behavior on the road. In particular, at the traffic lights, I told her: “Go if green; it’s not necessary to wait until the cars approaching the red traffic light stop. ”

After the funeral, everyone, familiars, relatives - everything! They only said that my mother did not cross the road at a red light.

I can assume that in the place where the car hit her, something unexpected happened, why she was on the path of dr. N., if we assume that dr. N. drove to the green arrow of the traffic light: maybe trying to get away from whom something, maybe someone pushed her, maybe a strong wind blew out onto the road. But! Now again, I return to the fact that a car is riding on her, in which a driver is sitting, who simply does not see her. He does not see only because he is 82 years old.

In that place - at the crossroads - almost at the traffic light, there are 2 street lights, the car has lights and does not rain in the driver’s eyes - the car has a windshield. Mom crossing the road is illuminated by the headlights of an oncoming car standing at a red traffic light. He has a steering wheel and a brake pedal. From the side where mother begins to cross the road - the whole Italian restaurant lit by lights. But he does not see her!

It was dark time of day, rain, that prevented Dr. N. from seeing; mother was dressed in dark, was not in reflective clothing, did not carry a lantern in her hands. If you get in a car, you have the right not to see what is happening around, and especially in front of you ?!

The policeman told me that my mother crossed the road in the dark, was in dark clothes and was also written in acts. Sounds like an accusation to her.

The policeman told me that even then, in the hospital, my mother was still in a coma, not dead yet: you will not help her with the accusations of the driver.

In that case, what's the point of investigating and judging any killers at all? Following the logic of the policeman, this can’t help the dead ?! What is the point, after 70 years to investigate the Holocaust and judge the feeble old Nazi executioners ?!

The police officer said when I asked at the hospital:
- Was she hit by a young driver?
- No, not young.
- Did the car go fast?
- No, slowly.
- What force was supposed to be a hit in order for this to happen with glasses ?! (A police officer returned my mother’s glasses, without glasses, with a rim broken into several parts)
- He drove slowly.
- Did you measure the braking distance?
- No, the road is wet, it’s impossible to measure.
- How do you know that slowly?
- The driver said and the witness. In addition, she went wrong and went on red.

I then said to the policeman: if I were driving that car in that very place, I would not have hit a man. I told the policeman back then that it was a lie that my mother didn’t go for red.

Police in acts indicates «Die ältere Fußgängerin Frau Gelfand» (old pedestrian Gelfand), but doesn’t indicate “at the wheel of a car that hit a person, was Der alte Fahrer Herr Dr. N.» (old driver Dr. N.). The difference in their age is 2 years.

Police in the acts writes: «Herr Dr. N. mit seinem PKW, mit dem amtlichen Kennzeichen B- langsam in die Warmbrunner Str. einbog…» (dr. N. slowly drove into a bend in his car on Warmbrünner Street). How can "langsam einbog" (turn slowly) and if about a pedestrian, break a headlight, leave dents in a car, recline body, after a collision at 17-19 m ?! "langsam einbog", as I understand it, 5-10 km / h. With a “langsam einbog,” he would just push his mother and there would be absolutely nothing left on the machine. The body would not have flown 17-19 meters from the collision place.

After all, the police had to understand this right away. Why do they write "langsam einbog" ?!

Police in the acts writes: «…der Verkehrsunfall durch die verstorbene Fußgängerin Frau Bella Gelfand vermeidbar gewesen, wenn Frau Gelfand innerhalb der Fußgängerfurt bei Grün abstrahlender Lichtzeichenanlage die Fahrbahn überquert hatte.» («“The road accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased pedestrian - Bella Gelfand, as Ms. Gelfand crossed the roadway at the pedestrian crossing with a green arrow burning for turning cars”»).

This is normal?! Why does the bias of the police hurt your eyes?

After all, everyone understands: the driver is lying. He lies about the green arrow, about speed, lies with his fellow traveler - a witness. Why does the police help a criminal lie?

The police are not biased, but believed what was said at the scene of the incident by the killer and his fellow traveler? So the police should, like no one else, know that drivers and their companions (the so-called "witnesses") in car accidents always lie in their favor.

There are several variants for what happened.

1.Mom crosses the road, on the green. In front of her, as it usually happens, she manages to slip to the right or left of the one that turns - this delays her. Next, seeing his green arrow, this one gasses. After all, he understands: a delay - and he will be hit by perpendicular cars, which will now go from the road on which he turns - on one or the other side. He needs to be in time. He does not expect anyone in his path because his green arrow has lit up on him. He goes and does not wait to see anyone. When a blow occurs and the body falls on the hood - he saw, but he does not have time to apply the brake: he needs to realize what he saw and only then slow down. He cannot respond by emergency braking until he is aware.

2.The driver goes before the green arrow lights up, and this is quite normal, since the road in front of him (from his words and the words of the witness in his car) is completely empty of cars. Then, naturally, the pedestrian burns green. If he, as he says, doesn’t turn when the road is completely empty from oncoming cars and waits for the “green arrow” near the phonophore, even after a dialogue with him about his fellow traveler has taken place, this can only be explained either by his senility, or by the fact that he is lying. When a car turns, it never stands and waits for a green arrow if the road is completely empty and no one (for example, another car turning left to the car he is facing) does not obstruct the view of the road. He is lying and his witness for only one purpose: to prove that their car drove as late as possible and the pedestrian, accordingly, began his movement on red.

In addition, Dr. N. and his fellow traveler, it turns out, are waiting for the "green arrow" at the line in front of the traffic light. To the place where he should have been waiting for the "green arrow", another 13 meters. But they do not wait for the green arrow in front of the traffic light if the traffic light is green, but go to the middle of the intersection and wait there. Because:

1. He will not allow anyone to drive after himself (the width of the road is 4 meters): neither straight, nor right, nor left. He risks that the cars coming from behind, at best, will start to signal and swear at him, at worst - will crash into him.
2. He loses the opportunity to inspect the place where he will go further. And after all, this is only 6 pm, so there was a stream of cars either behind it, or in both directions.
3. Driving experience Dr. N., according to my calculations, is about 50 years old, he would not have waited for the “green arrow” before the intersection at the traffic lights.

And if he had been waiting for the “green arrow”, having left, as it should be in the middle of the intersection, then for 13 meters from the place to the place where the mother crossed the road, he could not have picked up speed of 30 or more km / h.

Honestly: yes, I’m old, I have a slow reaction, I don’t see well, yes, it was not like that, it was completely different or a little bit different, yes, I lied, I killed a man - he cannot: he children, grandchildren, and they are against it. And he is against this: he has children and grandchildren, he is others, he may have a gloriously and honestly lived life and reputation. It will not help a downed one, but it - both financially and morally - will harm him. And his lawyer is trained only to help him get out of this trouble by any means, tells where and how to lie more correctly. And the police from the place of inspection, reassured the old man, drew up the protocol as he wanted. Maybe the old man was crying, maybe he looked miserable and depressed, maybe he showed business cards, where he is “dr.” But for the murdered woman, it’s true, no judicial result for Dr. N. — neither accusatory nor exculpatory, will help at all.

As Dr. N. did not injure, did not cripple, but killed my mother, and now she cannot argue that she was going green of traffic light, Dr. N. and his “witness” take advantage of this, blaming the man they killed for their own benefit. That is, Dr. N. not only killed, but also slandered whom he had killed. Negotiated with the help of a "witness" in his car.

What power was the blow? According to damage to the car and the weight of the deceased mother, why experts can not determine exactly how fast the car was traveling at the time of the impact? What is the difficulty here ?!

It is also easy to determine the speed with which the mother crossed the road (road width 9 m.).

If you know exactly the place where mom crossed the road and the place where she lay after the accident, why can’t experts calculate the speed at which Dr. N. was traveling? Making corrections for his reaction, conducting a medical examination. After all, everything is known: weather, time, place of impact, body fall on the hood, braking, road conditions, the place where the body turned out after braking.

After the conclusions of the examination: if he drove, for example, 30 or more km / h, then he didn’t stop at the green arrow, but entered the turn (if empty with his words road) without stopping.

Rain, dark, wet road, you are old, you do not see the person you are knocking down, why not enter the corner at a speed of 5-15 km / h ?! Why not give another person a chance to live ?!

I clearly imagine what will happen next: Dr. N. will pass through a lawyer to the court certificates on the sharply worsened state of his health, as a result of rushing under his car alte frau, the court will postpone the sentence for years. The lawyers of Dr. N. will find more witnesses under whose cars my mother tried to rush repeatedly.

Young and arrogant rides, exceeding speed and knocks down a person - it's a crime. A drunk or drug addict knocks down - it's a crime. Maybe even 100 times a very good person before the accident, Dr. N., who is aware of his inability to drive the car as when he was 50, unable to respond to dangers, aware of his age, goes and knocks a person to death. Not a crime? The end result of all of them is the death of man. What is the difference between their approach to killing?

I ask Dr. N.'s insurance policy, police reports for the last 10 years and Flensburg to make a request for all accidents. N. I ask you to check his mobile phone. Perhaps during the accident somebody called him or he called. It will become quite obvious what happened now.

My brother and I were left without a mother, four grandchildren - without a grandmother. I wrote a lot, maybe somewhere I was wrong. Give me my mom back, I will repair your car, Dr. N.

Vitaly Gelfand