Dear attorney,
      
I would like to draw your attention to some inconsistencies in the interrogation. Criminal and witnesses, and I would like to draw your attention to numerous crimes committed by 83-year-old driver doctor N. that have occurred.

⦁In old age, physical or mental deficiency may justify such driving. If the authority doubts the suitability of driving pensioner's car in accordance with § 11 Driving License Ordinance (FeV) due to a traffic accident or the like, a medical examination may be prescribed. Special attention given to these aspects:

⦁ vision
⦁ hearing
⦁ mental and nervous health

If deficiencies are found in one of these points, the person concerned may have to hand over their old driver’s license. They often are unaware of the dangers faced by people who can no longer ride on the street. In this case, physical or mental deficiency can quickly lead to impaired proper passage. Steering, steering, or distance errors errors occur partially increased and lead to an emergency in an emergency.

In connection with 11 Fev I ask for a medical examination of the 83-year-old driver Dr. N.

As seen in the photo from the investigation report

⦁ the street is lit
⦁ visibility over 50 m.
⦁ the road is wet, but the road in all directions is clearly visible.

And the driver was with a passing light, otherwise 17 para. 3 StVO

    ⦁ As you can see in the photo below, from the point where the normal route is for a vehicle that wants to turn left, the road and the pedestrian crossing to the stop line are very well visible

The following photographs show this intersection at night, as well as the mysterious situation that occurred a few seconds before the accident.
      
Photo from the Samsung S9 plus camera (04/10/2019 approx. 21.00)

 

As you can see: the intersection is very well visible, and even in the dark you can see another person, even if he is dressed in the dark. As a car standing at a traffic light, so the dipped beam is on. In other photos you can see the same situation from another camera (phone from Mr. V. Gelfand)

 

Even with the worst camera, everyone sees a person moving in the dark along a pedestrian crossing. But the human eye sees better than a camera with flicker on!

⦁ When turning left, you should not wait for the green arrow when it is behind the intersection, and the oncoming stream is free, which is the last chance arrow to leave the intersection if the oncoming stream is too dense. And experience, and after several discussions with driving instructors, it was established: if there is no vehicle on the oncoming traffic, you need to turn and do not need to wait on arrow. Ms. G's testimony:

⦁    From this, I see the following shutdown errors:

The car is long before moving, although the oncoming traffic is free and waiting for the green arrow, which is unbelievable. Because in this case, the vehicle must be located between the central islands in Hubertusallee. 9 StVO , StVO Comment 15 Edition (Roland Schurig), a textbook for drivers of class “B”. The red light breaks, because when measuring the time when the main traffic light is on, the green arrow for Dr. N. has been shining red for 2 seconds. As proof, I'm adding a video from a traffic light where you can see it for sure.

The interrogation of Mrs. A. 01.15.2019 at 9:49:
      

It follows:
      
She stands at a red traffic light and sees Mrs. Gelfand at the moment when the pedestrian is green (because in one sentence she says: ... through red ... and immediately comes the following sentence: ... only turned red ...). At this moment, Ms. Gelfand is almost in the middle of this intersection, since Ms. Gelfand is not can go fast, it follows that she began this intersection on GREEN LIGHT. At the moment, Ms. Gelfand in the safe area of ​​Mrs. A.'s pedestrian and vehicle, illuminated by the dipped headlights of her car!
      
Therefore, hereinafter Mrs. A. you can see the story in different ways (as she tries to justify Dr. N., and may regarded as an attempt to cheat):
      
The street is very dark, poorly lit, and the lady is also dressed in dark. On she was wearing a dark quilted jacket, beige and brown wadded shoes, dark trousers
Here the question arises: When is very dark and poor visibility, as well as can be seen on woman A. and was able to describe on Gelfand almost immediately every piece of clothing? And from this comes the following:
      
Ms. Gelfand is in a safe pedestrian area and at least least in front of Mrs. A.'s car with a dipped beam! And on the street she was clearly recognizable.
      
After three experimental measurements (04/10/2019), the time was determined after SHIFT:
      
Green arrow on for 3 seconds
      
Green pedestrian traffic light 22 sec
      
Red for cars on the vehicle stop line (mrs. A.) and red for pedestrians (Gelfand) lights up at 15 seconds and then turns green.
      
If the red light is turned on for pedestrians, then after 12 seconds the green arrow will turn on.
      
The main traffic lights at Hubertusallee (traffic light for Dr. N.) 2 seconds red until the green arrow turns on.
      
Now questions to the picture:
      
The direction of the pedestrian shown in police A. is completely wrong, therefore that Ms. Gelfand wanted to go to the bus stop, not to sports field, in addition, she didn’t want to go in the direction where did she come from.
The carriageway is not so wide. Since only one car passes, and BMW does not pass nearby.
      
Therefore, the sketch should look completely different (Mrs. W.'s memory protocol also helps)

 

I also spoke with staff at an Italian restaurant:
      
Me: Sorry, someone who worked here 3 months ago when the accident happened.
Waiter 1 One second, I will ask.
Waiter 2 (a few seconds later): Yes. I was here, but, unfortunately, I did not see the accident.
Me: Did you happen to see where the woman was after the accident?
Waiter 2: Yes. I can show where the ambulance was and where the woman was. Difference from 50 cm to 1 m.
Me: Thank you very much.

And the scene of the incident under the protocol was found with a difference of up to max. 1 m.

 

The measured distance between the place of collision and the place where Ms. Gelfand was lying is 17.5 m.
      
From the interrogation protocols, you can create the following image 1 second before the accident:

And at the time of the accident:

As you can see in the first shot, Mrs. Gelfand was lit. dipped beam of a standing car. At the time of switching the traffic light, she was almost in the middle of the road crossing, and after 1-2 seconds and after 1 - 1.5 meters accident occurred.
      
The place where Ms. Gelfand was after the accident, about 17.5 meters from the pedestrian crossing:
      
The average human reaction time is 1 second.
      
The vehicle speed on the left turn (data test) is from 25 to 30 km / h, we take an average of 27 km / h.
      
So, the reaction path (from the moment the driver reacted):
      
Braking distance without specified braking values ​​(nowhere else in the survey braking used by Dr. N. using ABS):
      
The braking distance is 15.39 m. For this, we calculate 0.2 s for the transition of the foot between the throttle and the brake = 2 m, and we get the full stopping distance 17.39 m.
      
Conclusion, in my opinion:

⦁    Dr. N. is no longer suitable at his age to drive a vehicle and must be submitted for medical examination.
⦁    In statements about the Green Arrow, I I find red pedestrian lights as an attempt to deceive about this accident and mistakes to justify N., because the green the arrow turns on only when Dr. N. has 2 seconds of red traffic light and can no longer cross the intersection. That's why everyone else testify to the red light for pedestrians, etc. Proof: photo below:

⦁    Statement The assertion that Ms. Gelfand was outside the pedestrian crossing, that she was not lit and no one saw her, is also a lie, because calculating the time to switch traffic lights can create the right picture.

⦁    All the testimonies of Mrs. A. are wrong from the very moment. beginning. She says that in one sentence, the sentence is different in the other, and the statements and the figure do not correspond at all with the testimonies of other witnesses, and the instructions in the figure will not have logic or physics, in addition, the neighboring car simply does not fit the width of the road to the place as Mrs. A. showed

I ask that the prosecutor can order a proper examination so that the correct speed can be determined by the tracks of the accused car, discarding the force that the accused 1 StVO "constant caution" and "mutual consideration" are not respected. That the accused was completely distracted during the turn, the defendant’s fraud attempt (deception attempt) was made by 263 StGB , the following paragraph violates 1 StVO, 9 StVO , 49 StVO ,        37 StVO , 11 FeV , 24 StVG
      
And because of 222 StGB should be sentenced to a maximum fine for freedom.
      
Because it is very accurate to say that Mr. N. was driving with violation of a left turn or without a green arrow to wait for it, no side view. Ms. Gelfand began to cross the street on the pedestrian Traffic lights in green light for pedestrians. By car of Mrs. A. she was lit by a neighbor light and well recognizable on the street, although she was dressed in dark. Since they all said it was red, there was a green arrow, which did not fit at all, one can suspect that people have agreed among themselves, but they forgot that everything can be done by experts, with using surveys, physical computing. There are formulas and mathematics.

I see that Mr. N., without stopping, without a sight, was distracted from his driving, just drove at a speed of almost 30 km / h to the left red traffic light and Ms. Gelfand exited to the pedestrian zone. And if he understood it correctly and understood that happened trying to get people out of the way and get rid of debt without debts. I am surprised that to this day Mr. N. has not passed a medical examination and did not pass the driver’s license and continues driving, which as a result is very dangerous for other people.

I also ask you to pay close attention to 3 StVO Absatz 2a :
"Anyone who drives a vehicle should behave like this in relation to children, needy and elderly people, in particular reducing driving speed and braking readiness so that eliminate any danger to these road users. "
      
and 26 StVO Absatz 1 :
"Vehicles except for pedestrian crossings rail vehicles must allow road crossing parts of people walking and using a wheelchair or wheelchair strollers who intend to use the pedestrian crossing. You You can only move at a moderate speed; if necessary you must wait. "

With friendly greetings,
R.M.