# 10. The opinion of the car expert from 21 August, 2002 as to whether or not the damage could have been caused by "a hand".

About six weeks passed between this time and a meeting held at the prosecutor’s office on August 30th. I was only first allowed to see these stories only in July. At that July meeting I pointed out that there were “water marks” on the hood that you could see in the photos and that these marks indicated that the damages to the car were old. This information was passed on to Zaremba. Though my attorney did not inform me of this, Zaremba was invited to give a statement at the August 30th meeting. He also turned in the following report of Damages at that time. This report was attached to an “expert opinion” that the damages to the car “COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A HAND” Not my hand, just any hand.

Part 1.
1. The car is Renault Megan. Etc. The car was sold, so the numbers changed. Jablonski owns it. The date of registration is 22 April 1996 and the odometer reads 105823.
2. On the car there are no damages which were told about by Zaremba on 15 may. The front glass was not broken, and had been changed. The parts that were described as damages on the date of 15 May were painted and were fixed. The roof was painted and the middle part of the roof was fixed and in the back lip was changed. The back left door was painted and the front mask was changed. The back left door was fixed.
Part 2. The experts opinion:
1. On the car there are no damaged described as having happened on 15 may. On the basis of the photos I claim that the front glass was damaged and it was replaced. It could have been damaged because of a bare hand.
2. I say that the roof was damaged and it was fixed. The photographic document does not show the size of the damages. On the basis of the size of the fixed parts and how far it was from the side of the car, I say that the damages could have been made by a bare hand.
3. On the basis of the photos and on inspection of the car, no one can say if the front mask was damaged. One can only say that it was painted, this is why one cannot say that the damages could be caused by a bare hand. (This one was important later on. I’ll remind you.)
4. On the basis of the inspection of the car, the damages were fixed. The photos do not show the size of the damages. On the basis of the size of the elements that were fixed and the basis if the description from 15 May, I say that the scratches on the door could not be made by a hand.
5. The value of the damages as described as happening on the 15th of May was written in the cost estimate that was included with the expert’s opinion and uses about the middle price for fixing them. (Now obviously, Kalinowski was not told of the subsequent accident and his remark here shows this. However small though, remarks such as these, especially in the hands of an outrageously prejudiced court can be damning. And, of course, they were.)
Part 3: The conditions of the estimate.
1. The cost estimate was based on a middle price for work per hour, which are normal for Renault cars in Warsaw.
2. The prices of work per hour could be different because of insurance, etc: 4225.29pln
(Eventually you see, this was the number the court decided was the correct amount to charge me. I hope I am making myself clear. Anyway, Zaremba comes to Wiesniakowski’s office. I have, of course not been told of this. Here is his interview. )