#12. Zaremba’s third interview, taken at the office of the prosecutor August 30th, 2002

My first attorney was at the time a fellow named Wotczech Tomczek. I had up until this time never met the even though the case had been going on for almost two months. I did finally get that first meeting only a day before the following meeting with Zaremba was held. This was also the same day as the previous two documents were handed in. During that meeting, Wotczech Tomczek refused to tell me about the documents, that there had been differences in the damages or even that Zarmba would show up the next day for an interview.

1. I have been informed about your responsibilties and now I testify.
2. I completely confirm that I had given before.
3. Today I have been given the documents in my case as a victim and I am awear of what I have said.
4. There might be some small differences but that they have no influence over the whole situation. (This in responce to what I have pointed out already.)
5. There might be some differences in the order of the events about bumping into the car. (But Zaremba wants to make a statement this day. I don’t know why he tries to do this, but go ahead and read the following sentences.)
6. Today I remember that on the car there was a mark on the right side that goes from the back of the car to the mat protector on the rear door, a little under the window or the glass.
7. This scratch was in black color, probably coming from the driver of the bike or one of the grips that were on the handlebar. (He will explain about this later in this statement.)
8. The amount of 3000 zlotys is a minimal amount, but I will let this stay. And this is all. (This is in reference to the number for the damages given in the second report of damages that comes to 4225.29 pln. The following is in response to a question regarding the condition of the car before our confrontation.)
9. From the question of the prosecutor: My car, before the day that I met Mr. Goodman, had one dent on the running board on the right side.
10. All of the described damages I have told about have come about as a result of Mr. Goodman's actions, specifically throwing the bike or by action with his hands. (Forget that kick, I guess. It doesn’t fit the story. This is not as small of a point as it seems. You will understand when he finally gets to the court.
11. (Why didn’t you report this to the insurance company?) I had bought insurance but I didn’t report the damages.
12. I didn’t report this because in my opinion, as far as I know, insurance doesn’t cover…
13. The firm that makes insurance doesn’t cover losses if the person who has done the harm is known. (This is an important point to make as well when juxtaposed against his court testimonies. I say this because when he does eventually admit there bier being previous damages, that those damages were paid for by the insurance firm is a given. If he tries to report this accident to the company, his premiums go up dramatically. There is also the thought that if the insurance company paid on a previous claim, there would be pictures taken and an estimate made. And though Zaremba can do what he likes with the insurance money, should those estimate photos show that the glass of the car was already cracked at that time, Mr. Zaremba goes directly to jail without passing go. And of course, none of my four attorneys nor any single person from the court ever contacted the insurance company to ask about any such existing photos.)
14. While I was getting to the junction, my car didn’t have and contact with Mr. Goodman's bike,
15. (Adds) at before the described incident, While I was driving on the left lane I saw the bus which was getting to the crossing in the middle lane.
16. I had to brake, so I would not have a collision with the biker, who was earlier cycling on the right lane,
17. Then on the middle lane and then almost perpendicular, he came into the left lane.
18. During this time there was no contact between our vehicles because I slowed down and I signaled with sound which made the biker to go from the left lane into the middle one. (Now, read this carefully. He is saying He can see me, I am in front, and then I go in front of him. This will also be made clear as well in court when I ask him about the distances between his car and the bus.)
19. He was behind me when I got to the junction.
20. Behind me, there were other cars, at least three which were standing behind me, and only in that moment did he come between the cars, and between the bus which was standing on the middle lane, he came to the front of the junction
21. He had problems with fitting between the vehicles and the bus, and it seems that this made him angry.
22. When he was passing my car, he was rocking on his bike
23. He hit into the roof several times with his fist, and after driving (riding) in front of my car, he threw his bike down on the ground… (Now I have not only hit his car several times but also he makes it very clear that I rode on the bike to the front of the car, just as he has said in each of his previous statements. I mean this is clear and an important part of his statement: He didn’t block my way and I could “ride” past him.)
24. And his following behavior I described in my previous testimony. (I think he stops here so as to avoid any more detail problems about his idea of the order of the attack. But next he talks about that black mark he wants to charge to me. Now remember, I have hit his car while passing no times, one time and several times…)
25. If we are talking about the damages on the right of my car that they hadn’t been noticed during the inspection: The inspection was DURING THE RAIN and my car was wet, and those marks that were made on the right side weren’t deep. (Now he is obviously trying to deflect my “water damage” observances here, but his trying that the detail was missed because of the report being done in the rain is an obvious screw up. The guy who did the report said: “ This report about the inspection of this car was made in natural light and good conditions. The temperature was 18 deg Celsius without rain” Right there in the first sentence of the report. And concludes by saying “ And the conclusion of the protocol is in the same atmospheric conditions.” However, Zaremba really decides he likes this alleged black mark. He likes it because he thinks he can make a point about this during my testimony to the court. I talk about that more later.)
26. (He adds) I didn’t notice this for a few days, and they are not on the list of damages.
27. (Why did you sell the car?) I sold my car because my wife found it to be bad luck and my daughter, after this incident with Mr. Goodman felt some aversion to this car.
28. (from the question from the accused) I state as I testified on the junction, there was not enough room to make it possible for the bike to go between them.
29. I state that my car was the closest to the bus. (My question)
30. The biker was riding towards junction between the vehicles standing in their lanes of movement.
31. (question) Why did the witness put the car so close that the accused could not go between the vehicles? (I love this answer!)
32. (answer) Because I was surprised by the discussion of the cyclist to go between the standing vehicles. The cyclist shouldn’t have been riding between the vehicles. The law does not allow him to do this. (Read that again. First of all, if we are speaking of his version of the story, he made a driving maneuver in reaction to an event that has not as of yet happened. If we read this from my side of the events, he is admitting to purposely driving in front of me and telling us he did it because he wanted to teach me something about biking. If we read it this second way (The first is somewhat comical) it is called an admission of criminal intent. So, hearing this at the time, I asked this:)
33. (question) Was this a form of punishment?
34. (answer) No. Because I hadn’t seen the reason in punishing a cyclist. (Are we getting clearer by now? Why didn’t you tell him you were a cop?)
35. I haven’ shown my police identification because it wouldn’t do anything, and I didn’t have time, and I didn’t have time for it because of what he did later.
36. (question) Why did he get in my way that there wasn’t room enough for me?
37. (answer) I hadn’t stood in his way? If he couldn’t fit, if he didn’t have enough room, he shouldn’t go through this space.
38. (answer) I didn’t bar Mr. Goodman's way, I was just driving on my lane, and I was driving as the rules allow. (The last two answers were made by the prosecutor himself. The prosecutor then moved us along to deal with the issue of throwing the bike at the car.)
39. (question from the attorney) I confirm that Mr. Goodman was throwing his bike into my car. He did it in such a way, that he picked his bike up and threw it on the front of the car, on the bumper of my car. It was once from the front. He precisely threw his bike, allowing the bike to leave his hands, and then from the left side of the car. I am not sure if this was throwing or just pushing car (the bike?) between the fence and the car. (Now this is a small point, but you got to remember that he said this when he gets around to constructing his court testimony. You see, what he is saying, and specifically he gestured as if he was throwing a paper airplane, is that I threw the bike at the car, as a weapon. He said that I threw the bike away, then picked it up AFTER ATTACKING FROM THE RIGHT, and then purposely throwing it at the bumper (!). Do you understand this? This is his account of what happened at the crossing. When we get to the court statements, if you don’t understand what they did by then, you need to buy property in Poland.)
40. In this place the witness was shown a photo. #2 of pictures taken this day and he showed the damages to the bumper in the photo in which there are scratches to the paint.
41. The attorney has no questions.
42. I don’t know if the perpetrator damaged his bike.
43. I don’t see a difference in the times of throwing the bike in my testimony.

(We had pretty much fallen apart during the questioning. I kept trying to ask questions about the car's position but the prosecutor refused to allow me to claiming I was asking the same question over and over again. Perhaps it was too subtle for the translator to translate, but more likely, they were simply not interested in having Zaremba’s story attacked. I refused to sign the document. I think that the whole of this was pretty obvious.