208 replies to this topic

[Bex37]

Originally posted by Bruce
Firstly, even Bex has tacitly agreed that DH's move was neither brash nor over zealous.

Mainly because it is near impossible to prove, even if computer simulation was available to us, which it isn't.

[Bex37]

Originally posted by vroom-vroom
So, even Mr Schumacher's most biased advocates (ref. "Moron of the Race Award") concede now that Mr Schumacher is at least partially responsible for the crash. See above statement for example. Hence this party has now downgraded its court-lobbying efforts to request a verdict of shared responsability or "racing accident."

I have never argued that MS had no blame in the accident nor have I made arguments for MS sharing the blame. This court case is literally convened to determine whether it was MS's fault, DH's fault or a racing incident. Based on the evidence before us, I believe that it was a racing incident .

By doing so, they have opened the doors to the following question: did they or didn't they prove (or even show) that Hill was in anyway responsible for the incident.

Yes.

By their own admission, Schumacher was responsible (in part), but as far as Hill's involvement is concerned, we have heard the following arguments:
[*]he should have waited
[*]he should have known that Schumi didn't see him
[*]he shouldn't have tried to overtake after Schumi had hinted that he was in aggressive mode by a couple of swerves
[*]he was overambitious [why?]
[*]he should have seen that Schumi's car was crippled, thus he should have been very careful
[*] he didn't have his front wheels ahead of Schumi's front wheels after he locked wheels to avoid contact
[*]he dared to try to overtake a driver who had already started to turn in
[*]he dared to try a pass on a slower car
[*]he dared to surprise Schumi by a bold unheard-of move on the inside.
[*]he was stupid
[*]he should have kown that the Benetton's mirrors were small and had the notice "objects in this mirror may appear further than they actually are" printed on the bottom.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that you have summarised all of the arguments from the last four pages into one post and have maintained the objectivity that those posts contained. Indeed, your representation of arguemtn is coloured with sarcastic inuendo, eg. "he dared to ......".

Excuse me, but none of these arguments hold water. They are charged with bias ("Moron of the Race Award"),

Just like your oversimplified, sarcastic representation of them above

Bex thinks that Senna was clearly visible to Prost when he pulled off a similar move, yet insist that, in the present case, Hill should have waved all kinds of signals to make Schumacher aware that he was about to be overtaken and where

Where in hell did I say that Hill should have waved all kinds of signals? To say such a thing about me is a lie.

and a considerable amount of speculation.

Both sides are speculating at times, but not everyone is lying.

In short, Schumacher's defenders are willing to accept a verdict of shared responsability, but are unable to clearly show Hill's responsability in this incident, besides being in a legitimate position to overtake Schumacher.

If you would only read the posts you would see much more evidence than that. It is no defence for Hill for you to ignore such evidence.

I believe that it really boils down to the last instants before the crash when we can be reasonably sure that both saw one another and saw that an accident was imminent: one took evasive action; the other did not - an undisputed fact backed by on-board video footage. Actions (or lack threof) speak louder than words.

Does Hill's evasive action hold any weight if it were taken after making a driver error that made an accident inevitable. Of course it doesn't. Your "two fact" summary of this case is clearly speculation. Worse, it completely ignores important issues that form the heart of this case.

[Bex37]

Originally posted by Captain Cook
I believe Mr. Schumaher performed no deliberate manouvers in the context of this collision ......

Absolutely.

During those 34 laps Mr. Schumacher would have been acutely aware of Mr. HIll's track position. Make no mistake about it, he would have been obsessed with it.

That does not put in a position to judge Hill's track position accurately. At 100km/hr it takes only 0.2 second to cover a car length.

I believe that after the collision with the wall and in the following 3-4 seconds Schumacher was in shock. His obsession with Mr. Hill's track position would have hit fever pitch. In this time the realization of car damage would also have been occuring to him, causing rapidly mounting panic. These factors combined with the initial stress levels of the race itself sent him over the edge.

No, he did not go over the edge. He clearly made a good attempt to get his car, which was exhibiting some weird handling, through the next corner.

He then reacted to the situation created by Mr. Hill's attempted manouver much like a boxer reacts following a heavy blow.

As evidenced by MS's incar footage where MS begins to turn his head in great surprise, MS sees DH only hundredths of a second prior to impact. MS could not have done any more other than completely give up before assessing his car for damage. No team boss, sponsor or fan would forgive such a reaction.

Based on this I believe Mr. Schumacher, if found guilty, should be found guilty with diminished responsibility.

This case is not to determine whether MS is guilty or not guilty. It is to determine whether the incident was MS's fault, Hill's fault or a racing incident. With all the evidence presented, it is clearly a racing incident.

[Bex37]

Originally posted by vroom-vroom
Bex thinks that Senna was clearly visible to Prost when he pulled off a similar move, yet insist that, in the present case, Hill should have waved all kinds of signals to make Schumacher aware that he was about to be overtaken and where

And the result of the court decision relating to the previous case proved that I was correct. Thanks for pointing out that I have a track record of credibility.

On the other hand, you seem to insinuate that I have changed my mind when it comes to this case. I do not understand why I should have to argue my reasoning for another case within this case. Indeed, the differences between this case and the 89 Suzuka Prost/Senna incident could form a complete court case of its own. For this reason, I will say this once only, since it is only muddying the real issues of this case. I will not be drawn to argue it further here, even if you wish to carry it on.

In the Prost/Senna case;

• Senna moved to the inside of the track an estimated 100 metres away from the corner, giving Prost plenty of chance to see Senna coming down the inside prior to turn-in.
• there was conclusive evidence that Prost had seen Senna, swerved away from Senna, and then steered back into Senna.

The exact opposite conditions exist in this case.

• MS had very little chance of seeing Hill as Hill only moved to the inside of the track virtually at the same time as MS starts aiming for the apex of the corner.
• There is no evidence to suggest that MS sees Hill on his right until Hill is literally hundredths of a second away from hitting MS, by which time it is too late.

Vroom-Vroom, I find your methods of arguing your case to be questionable. You appear to be attacking my credibility by twisting the truth. Indeed, you actually lied at one point!

Your last post summarises other people's arguments, filling them with sarcasm, yet you provide no real evidence to contradict those arguments. You try to narrow the case down to a "two-fact" philosophy, that seems to suit your cause. In doing so, you fail to recognise that the purpose of this case is to provide an open forum to discuss a controversial incident, which, by way of the very existance of such long-held controversy, is obviously not a "two-fact" argument. I really hope that you can find some constructive contributions to the issues raised. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

For example, in the 89 Suzuka Senna/Prost case, I argued that Prost had seen Senna as he did not seem surprised when contact was made, yet, MS actually turns his head and looks at Hill in what can only be construed as surprise. If MS hit Hill on purpose, why would MS be so surprised?

If you do not believe that MS was surprised, go and look at footage of someone who was not surprised by looking at the 89 Suzuka incident. Prost actually steers away from Senna when he first sees him. Then, he steers towards Senna, heading towards the inside of the track and not the corner's apex (refer my many comments about the difficulty of hitting an apex whilst looking at someone else in the mirror). Prost corrects his own line as he hits Senna. Prost doesn't move his head to look at Senna at all at any time during or before impact. MS shows none of the tell-tale signs above. I submit that these tell-tale signs are reflexes and/or symptomatic and cannot be hidden, no matter how smart MS is.

[vroom-vroom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
Proove that:

[B]1.[/B]  There would have even [B]BEEN[/B] a gap for DH try and slip through if MS was actually able to consentrate and had good enough steering that would allow him to take that turn perfectly.

What is the point of proving this? If I read you correctly, you're only digging yourself deeper by assuming that Schumacher wasn't concentrating and that his steering was damaged due to his contact with the wall, thereby opening a gfap for Hill. In other words, you are stating that Mr Schumacher made TWO mistakes: (1) he damaged his car by tagging the wall on his own (no one has demonstrated that his car was damaged, BTW); (2) he was not concentrating (your assumption again. I summit to the Judges that it is rather ironic that Mr Schumacher's defender have become desperate enough to try to justify his acts by Mr Schumacher's alleged own mistakes.

[quote]You can't. This is a hypothetical situation. They cannot be proven. Chalk up another thing the prosecution cannot prove.[/quote]You're moving the goal posts - or worst, removing all goal posts. You're throwing in unprovable assumptions (which are detrimental to your client, BTW) and ask the other party to proove them. Why, but why should we proove asumptions that you yourself come up with? As you so aptly disclose: "This is a hypothetical situation. They (sic) cannot be proven."

[quote]2.That DH didn't see MS tag the wall (sorry, his word on it isn't good enough).[/quote]What difference does it really mean if Hill saw or didn't see Schumacher hit the wall? All that matters is that Schumacher offered Hill a golden opportunity for a pass, but refused to aknowledge his own mistakes, and punted Hill off as a last resort.

[quote]It's really very simple. The defense doesn't have to proove a thing.[/quote]Oh really? You've already aknowledged that your client was at least partially to blame. You've arbitrarily decided that your client punted the wall and thus damaged his own car's handling, thereby making it undriveable. You've arbitrarily decided that your client was distracted and had rearview mirrors that were either too small, vibrating, or distorting the view. In other words, you have convinced the court that your client was completely out of control during this whole episode. That places the burden clearly on you shoulders to proove that Hill was to blame too, a burden you have so far sadly failed to meet.. We can only assume that your strategy then is to claim that Hill was "stupid" for not following around an out-of-control car

[MattC]

There seems to be some disagreement here about 2 points;
- the accepted definition of "rights to a corner", and
- how far alongside MS's car DH had put his own car before he was turned-in on (rightly or wrongly).

I believe that for a long time there was no formal definition of "rights to a corner" in the rulebook of the FIA (or other F1 controlling body). I have read various instructional books written by experienced competitors who attempt to interpret this situation. The general concensus seems to be that if part of your car is more than half way past your competitor's car then you have the right to the corner. (In addition, most writers state that you had better make sure your car has reached his field of vision - if not, you can't expect to be allowed past by the other guy, irrespective of whether you have the theoretical right to the corner. This is less relevant these days, but some eras/formulas featured drivers perched nearly at the front of their cars on the front axle!. So you might be "illegally" chopped, but still be out of the race.) Small clubman categories of racing sometimes put this convention in writing, with a variety of wordings.
I recall a few years ago that there was an F1 drivers and stewards meeting to discuss this point. The conclusion was to adopt the above "half-way" convention, and everyone seemed happy. (I cannot recall the exact date of this meeting, but I think it was certainly post 1990). I have no idea if there has ever been any other official statement/agreement on this point - I guess everyone just stuck to "unwritten rules", and not enough disputes arose to cause a problem (possibly because cars were less safe in the past, so drivers tended to shy away from contact if at all possible).

So to apply this to the Adelaide Incident;
I haven't played the video clips in detail, but in Post 43 of this debate, 30ft Penguin kindly posted some stills.
In the 2nd still, we can see DH's car partially alongside, still a fair way from the apex. DH's nose is somewhere close to the front wheels of the Benetton. So he is far more than "half-way up", but is not completely level with MS's car.
For this purpose, I shall assume that 30ftP found the still which showed DH as far up as possible ( ). Thus we can clearly conclude that Hill satisfied the currently accepted criteria for "rights to the corner". It should also be obvious from this picture that MS could not possibly fail to see DH's car at this point. Arguments about the field of vision afforded by an F1 drivers' helmet are thus pointless - MS would clearly have been able to see the nose of the Williams in plain view.
He thus CHOSE to hold his line despite the visible presence of the other car. In this kind of incident, the only POSSIBLE defence for this behaviour would be that at the moment of turn-in, the driver felt he had the corner and was unable to react in the short time between seeing a car inside him and reaching the apex. I would submit that this corner is taken at VERY low speed, making adjustments much easier/safer, and that around 2 seconds elapse between DH getting his car adjacent to MS and the moment of impact - thus an evasive correction should have been child's play.

In conclusion, MS decided to claim the line to the corner despite seeing a car inside him with a better claim.

(Note that this line of debate is ignoring the issues of damaged steering, and MS's motivation in WDC deciders, as demonstrated in Jerez 1997.)

(p.s.Wasn't this hearing supposed to be closed by 10th July?!?)

[Bruce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari


So we then can assume that Hill was telling the truth?[/QUOTE]

In the absence of proof that he was not, yes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
How about the reverse side of things? DH realises he acted with too much zeal and not enough intelligence. The British media is already acting like a bunch of barracudas. All that's left is for DH to put the icing on the cake. "I didn't know that he hit the wall." Ya, sure. He was comming 'round the mountain just as MS was struggling to get off the grass. If DH does say he saw MS hit the wall then he makes himself look like a fool. That way even the British media would have to hold DH partly responsible. DH contributes to the myth that MS hit him on purpose in a quiet and sportsmanlike manner and he regains something. It won't get him the WDC but it will make him look like a martyr to many people. Support from the masses in a publicity driven sport like F1 would be just what the doctor ordered to sooth DH's sore tummy spawned by inadequacy.[/QUOTE]

If you are going to criticise me for making "assumptions, I would humbly suggest that you shouldn't indulge in such flights of fancy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
Assuming DH is telling the truth that still doesn't change the fact that racing is racing. A driver that is going to take the risk of passing must also take part of the blame if there is a racing incident. [/QUOTE]

Ah, so JV is partially responsible for Jerez 1997? And don't tell me it's not germane to the case because it happened after the incident we are discussing -you have suggested that this "rule" is axiomatic - so JV must take part of the blame for MS attempting to take him out?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
MS had his sick and mishandling car to deal with. [/Quote]

What was he doing trying to take the apex of the corner than? If his car was as sick as you say, he should have been steering wide to allow other cars through.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
Don't bother bringing up Jerez 97. Future event. Irrelevent. Besides, MS wasn't dealing with a sick car and admitted to deliberatly hitting JV. In that case JV does not accept part of the blame for the crash.[/Quote]

By your own argument earlier, JV is partially responsible for that crash - make up your mind.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
If it's okay for DH to make an overzealouss and brash pass attempt on MS then it's okay for MS to bring a car that may still be operable back on the track.[/Quote]

There you go again - "brash and overzealous" - your assumption. There is no proof that this is so.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
His [MS's] risk didn't pay off [/QUOTE]

Oh no? He won the WDC with that move - how did it NOT pay off?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
You wouldn't believe it anyways. By contending that MS intentionally hit DH you obviously don't by his explaination that he was too busy focusing on his steering than he was on his mirrors. Why is it important to you if MS says it or not? Logic would deduce that unless MS saw visible damage like a wheel flying off MS would have no way of knowing how damaged his car was at the immediate moment of impact. So at the time he was pulling on to the track he would have no way of knowing exactly how damaged his car was. By the time he got to the corner he knew![/QUOTE]

Hmmm... very convenient - he apparently (your assumption, again) only "knew" how damaged his car was at the exact point where Hill and he had contact... - even if that is the case, his failure, even at the very last moment, to attempt some sort of avoidance clearly shows that avoidance was not on his mind.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
MS assumes part of the blame for taking a risk that didn't pay off. [/QUOTE]

You miss the point - MS's move DID pay off. He won the WDC with it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
In normal circumstances? If, in normal circumstances, there was as much room available as there was MS wouldn't deserve to hold on to his spot. In normal circumstances the small hole that WAS there when MS had a sick car would not even be there. As DH thought? Prove this. Since we are even bother with this court what someone [b]SAYS is not proof. Just because DH [b]SAID he didn't see him hit the wall doesn't mean that he [b]CAN'T be lying.[b][/QUOTE]

Again - if you wish to hinge part of your case on the idea that Hill was lying, you must be able to prove it. In the absence of such proof, we must take what he has stated as the truth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]The point of the trial is to prove that MS hit DH on purpose.[B][/QUOTE]

Incorrect. The point is to apportion blame, to whit;

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel Schot
[B]This case has been accepted for hearing, and it is the duty of this court to decide whether either Michael Schumacher or Damon Hill is to blame for the collision or that it should be put down as what is generally described as a racing incident, i.e. neither of the drivers can be solely blamed for the collision.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel Schot
[b]I don't need to prove that DH is to share in the blame[/QUOTE]

If you can't prove that DH has any share of the blame, but already you and others have admitted that MS has at least partial blame, than that has rather serious consequemces for your case, does it not?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel Schot
[b]Hill clearly acted overzealoussly and brashly. This is enough to put part of the blame on him.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it would be, [b]IF you could prove it. Once again, your assumptions are showing....


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel Schot
[b]Those two statements are so contradictary I don't even need to explain them.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how they are contradictory. Explain.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel Schot
[b]Where did the defence admit that? (that in normal circumstances Hill's pass probably would have worked)[/QUOTE]

Right here -

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[b]
DH tries that pass on a healthy MS there's probably no accident as MS has an easier time focusing on racing DH then he would have if he's trying to keep a car with crippled steering going in the right direction. [/QUOTE]


Next;
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[b]Wrong. He at least saw MS comming off the grass. There was almost no runoff room. Doesn't take a genious to see that there is a better than very strong chance that MS hit the wall. That's if DH wasn't lying to begin with. Also the jerky and stiff looking handling of MS' car immediately after he retook the racing line was another strong indication that the car wasn't right. Lack of racing savvy on DH's part.[/QUOTE]

If DH was completely unaware of MS's problems the pass attempt was valid - however, even if Hill WAS aware of the exact extent of MS's problems, the pass attempt would still be valid, as there is no axiom stating that damaged cars can adhere only to the racing line... Hill's natural assumption, if he knew that MS's car was damaged would have been to expect MS to give racing room... after all, what sort of driver tries to defend his position with a crippled car?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[b][B]Proove that:

[B]1.[/B]  There would have even [B]BEEN[/B] a gap for DH try and slip through if MS was actually able to consentrate and had good enough steering that would allow him to take that turn perfectly.

[VB][b][/QUOTE]


I don't see why the prosecution should have to prove that at all. The fact was that MS's car was damaged. What we are interested in are MS's actions in the light of what occurred.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]

[B]2.[/B]  That DH didn't see MS tag the wall (sorry, his word on it isn't good enough).

[B][/QUOTE]

Again, we are not under the burden of proving DH's statement to be true - rather, the burden is on you to prove it false.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]It's really very simple. The defense doesn't have to proove a thing.[B][/QUOTE]

Once again, wrong. If the defence is unable to prove that DH is partially responsible, then, given the defences admission that MS WAS partially responsible, who are we to blame? Defence admits MS's responsibility, but cannot (apparently) prove that DH was responsible - ergo MS is SOLELY responsible until such a time as the defence can exonerate him by offering factual proof to illustrate DH's responsibility. I would argue again, that you had better prove DH responsible - and you'vce gotta do better than repeating "brash and overzealous" ad nauseum.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]If MS really wanted to take out DH why did he wait until the corner? [B][/QUOTE]

Because that is the corner where DH caught up with him... hard to take DH out when he is 50m behind...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]He didn't even know where DH was.[B][/QUOTE]

Assumption.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]Basing your WDC on the assumption that DH is going to pass at that corner is very risky. MS has a much higher probability of successfully taking out DH by waiting for DH to pull up along side MS on the grass and [B][/QUOTE]

and ... and ... and what?

But I think I get your drift - but don't you think that parking his Benetton and then launching it at DH as DH passed would have been a little lacking in subtlety?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]There is not one iota of proof that MS hit DH on purpose circumstancial or otherwise.[b]THEN veering out and hitting DH. Or he could've simply slammed on the brakes as DH was extremely close to touching MS in the rear after MS retook the racing line.[b][/QUOTE]

MS also could have gotten out of his car and thrown his helmet at DH - the fact that he did not is not evidence of his innocence.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MFOT_Froza_Ferrari
[B]FACE IT!!! There is not one iota of proof that MS took out DH on purpose circumstancial or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. MS has admitted that he saw Hill prior to contact. However, a review of the tape shows that he took NO avoiding action. If his intention was to avoid DH, then there would have been some sort of reaction - braking -(likely locking up, as this is what occurs in a panic situation) or turning of the wheel away from the incident... In the absence of any avoidance, we are left with only one conclusion - that MS initiated the accident on purpose, or at best, failed in his responsibilty as a competitor to attempt proper avoiding action.

[baddog]

Thank you for your extensive contributions everybody. This Case is now closed, and Judgement will be delivered when the Judges have completed their deliberations

Shaun

[Billy]

Adelaide 1994 Judgement, by Billy and baddog

Introduction
The collision between Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill at Adelaide is remembered today as the event that decided the 1994 World Championship. At the press conference after the race, Michael was right to put this collision in it's proper context. By recalling the nightmare of Imola, he made us realise that the collision at Adelaide was not the most significant accident of 1994:

All of us know what feelings we have had to make about this, in particular for Ayrton, but as well for Roland, and as well for Karl (what happened in Monte Carlo). For me it always clear that I was not going to win the Championship, and it was Ayrton who was going to win the Championship, but he hasn't been there for the last races, and I'd like to take this Championship and give it to him.

The races following Imola in the 1994 Championship were still fought out under the shadow of Senna; they were diminished by his absence. It was not until 1995 and 1996 that Damon and Michael were truly free to create their own era in modern Grand Prix history. To win the 1994 Championship without Senna was seen by Schumacher as a hollow victory, and this victory was diminished even further in the eyes of the public by the fact that the Championship was decided by a collision in the final race.

It is the duty of this court to decide whether either Michael Schumacher or Damon Hill is to blame for this collision or that it should be put down as what is generally described as a racing incident, i.e. neither of the drivers can be solely blamed for the collision.

Verdict
At Adelaide 1994 Michael Schumacher made a reckless defensive manouevre, shutting the door without regard for the fact that Damon Hill couldn't slow enough to avoid a collision. This was a racing incident, with neither driver fully to blame. There was no credible evidence presented to support the claim that Schumacher deliberately collided with Hill, and there was no evidence whatsoever that Hill deliberately collided with Schumacher.

Due to the lack of evidence concerning the guilt of Hill, argument in the court was polarised into prosecution against Michael Schumacher, to support a guilty verdict against him, and defence of Michael Schumacher, to support the view that this was a racing incident. Henceforth in this judgement we refer to the prosecution and defence according to these definitions.

The role of Supporting Circumstantial Evidence in this Case
Supporting circumstantial evidence has been presented to the court to attest to each driver's character, by reference to similar incidents in each driver's career. Jerez 1997 is the most striking of these. Michael Schumacher has admitted he deliberately collided with Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez 1997 to prevent him from passing in that race. The prosecution sees this as evidence that Michael's character is such to make it likely that the collision in Adelaide 1994 was just another deliberate act by him. However it must be considered that the reverse may be true, in that the events of Adelaide may have made Schumacher feel more confident and bold about potentially over-aggressive defence of a corner. It is quite possible that Adelaide 1994 was not deliberate, but its outcome in favour of Michael encouraged the deliberate act later in Jerez 1997. On the opposite side of this coin we have Damon Hill's later record of failed attempts to pass Michael Schumacher, especially in races the following year. These could realistically be characterised as desperate and ill-judged, in the same way that the defence claims the Adelaide passing attempt to be. While this could be used to conclude that Damon was given to allowing his enthusiasm and desire to overcome his ability, we have sufficient video evidence to analyse the adelaide incident on its merits, which do not demonstrate the sort of closing speed and impact violence of these later incidents. This supporting circumstantial evidence suggests that characteristically Michael had a tendency for aggressive defensive manouevres, and characteristically Damon had a tendency for over-ambitious passing manoeuvres, which is a completely incompatible set of character traits in close racing situations.
.
Analysis of Prosecution Submissions

• Schumacher had damaged car, and therefore had no right to further participation in the motor race.
  
  There was damage to the Benetton, but no visible damage (the rear-wheel-at-an-angle theory was not adequately demonstrated). We cannot say how serious the damage was. The damage might have been slight, and in that case he was still a valid participant in the Grand Prix. From the video evidence it is plain to see Schumacher sawing at the wheel. Once you have gone off the track and hit your front wheel on a wall, a driver will check the steering is OK by sawing the wheel from right to left. Schumacher did this, but subsequently repeated these motions even while turning into the corner where the collision occurred. It is likely that the car was damaged and he was learning how to control it, while still racing for the lead of the motor race.
  
• Upon leaving the track, Schumacher had a major accident with the concrete wall
  
  The video shows a glance of the wall with the right front wheel. The reason for his off-track excursions was that Schumacher lost the back of the car on a bump in the middle of a left-hand-corner, had to steer to the right to correct the oversteer slide of the rear wheels, and hence couldn't take the left-hand turn on the tarmac, and he went off onto the grass, towards one of the concrete walls that surround the entire Adelaide street course. Schumacher took most of the corner on the grass, and finally hit his front-right wheel on the wall with the car almost parallel to it, so the force of the hit went almost directly along the axis of the axle, a much better scenario for the Benetton than if the angle of collision had been greater.
  
• Michael is allegedly looking in right mirror before the collision with Hill occurred
  
  Drivers always look inwards towards the apex of a corner. Michael could not have seen his outside mirror, but clearly he could have seen his inside mirror. While focussing on the apex, he still would have been aware of what was happening in the mirror. F1 drivers are capable of looking backwards and forwards at the same time, conciously focussing on forward events, but still aware of the position of cars behind.
  
• Contention that only full speed cars should be on racing line
  
  Only lapped or terminally-damaged cars can realistically be expected to assist a pass in this way..
  
• Michael's alleged deliberate attempt to take Damon out on the straight
  
  Upon rejoining the track, Michael returned to the racing line, and then defended that line, despite the fact his car was not at racing speed. Damon had to brake to avoid a collision, then was forced to change his line to the inside. After coasting over the grass, Michael bounced over the kerb back onto the track and only then had the opportunity to turn the car to the right to get the car pointing in the right direction. He had a choice: either to immediately turn very hard to get the car pointing in the right direction - which would have diminished his forward momentum and left the racing line open to Damon Hill - or to simply continue in his direction of travel until he was in a position to take the racing line, and then make his right-hand turn. He took the latter option, but this was not an attempt to collide with Hill.
  
• Damon was far enough alongside Schumacher to claim corner, allegedly with the tip of his car level with front wheels of Schumacher
  
  The point when Damon was this far alongside Schumacher was very late in the incident. Damon was almost a car length behind at the point when Schumacher started to turn in. However the reduced speeds meant that Damon had more time than normal to make his passing move.
  
• Schumacher must have seen Damon as he was alongside
  
  This is a strong supposition. It's likely that Schumacher saw Hill but it's unlikely that Schumacher could judge, or even cared to judge, the closing speed of Damon.
  
• Schumacher's turn-in was not normal but a sudden swerve to hit Hill
  
  MS turned in slightly earlier than usual, but the amount of early turn-in was not a significant factor in the collision. Adelaide is a street circuit, characterised by 90 degree corners. These are not smooth curves, but harsh turns, where the car changes direction very hard indeed. The ideal racing line tries to make the 90 degree corner into the largest possible curve, with a wide entry and exit, but the fact remains it is 90-degrees, and once you turn in, you throw the car through 90 degrees in a very short distance.
  
  If a driver wants to overtake on the inside of one of these turns, he is delaying his apex a very large amount. In this case, if Damon had progressed along the line he was taking, he still had a significant amount of turning to do after the classical apex to the corner, and therefore Michael would have had to slow very significantly and steer very wide to avoid Damon. It's fairly rare to see two cars go side-by-side through a 90 degree corner.
  
• MS blocked twice in the runup to the corner
  
  this is a flawed argument because turning into the corner is not blocking. The "no two moves" rule does not include turning into the corner defensively.
  
• Damon attempted to avoid the accident, whereas Michael did not
  
  Damon attempted to avoid the accident only once it was too late. Michael Schumacher turned into the corner in a fashion which did not take into account there was car behind him.

Analysis of Defence Submissions

• Damon's overtaking move was ill-judged and impetuous
  
  Given what Hill knew, it was a bold move, but no more than that. However, it did require cooperation from Schumacher to succeed.
  
• MS may not have known how badly his car was damaged and thus was entitled to defend his position.
  
  It is unreasonable to expect Schumacher to let Damon through while he checked the behaviour of his car. If Damon had been closely following Schumacher, he would have passed immediately when Michael left the track, and in that case MS wouldn't even have had the chance to defend his position.
  
• Michael focused on his badly damaged car and getting things back together, not on Hill
  
  As a top racing driver Michael should be capable of doing all these things simultaneously, and his actions when rejoining the track showed that his first priority was to keep the lead of the motor race. Once he joined that battle with Hill by taking the racing line, he was in a battle for position and should have been aware of the position of the following car.
  
• Hill's overlap was not until it was far too late, i.e. he lunged up the inside, not like having an overlap in the braking zone
  
  There wasn't a clear pass, where Schumacher would have been prevented from turning in by the fact that Hill's car was level with the Benetton, but it was a valid attempt to pass because this situation was not a normal braking zone due the reduced speeds of the cars.
  
• Michael was not looking in his mirror ... turning his head to the right implies nothing as the mirrors can be seen with head straight.
  
  We cannot know this for sure, but a likely supposition was that Michael was aware of what was in his mirror, but he was not focussing on it.
  
• The moment Michael becomes aware of Hill is clear from his sudden head movement just before impact
  
  While at that moment it is clear he does see him, this does not prove he wasn't aware previous to that.

Judge's Comments

A central plank of the prosecution case is that Damon Hill was substantially faster arriving at the corner than Michael, so Michael shouldn't have turned in across him. Yet there is actually no reason to think their speed into the corner was significantly different. Damon arrived faster at the apex of the corner, but he came from a long way back. By the turn-in point on the racing line, the speed they were travelling at was a braking-point decision made by the drivers not an issue of relative car speed. It is true that both the cars arrived at the corner at a slower speed than normal. The prosecution argues that Damon was blocked by Michael in the run up to the corner, hence at this point his speed was restricted to the slower speed of the Benetton. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest the braking or accelerative performance of the Benetton was in any way hampered. Therefore they must both have arrived in the corner at approximately the same speed.

The fact that Michael Schumacher's car was damaged must in the analysis of their relative behaviour in the corner be discarded as irrelevant. Damon did not know that Michael had hit the wall, and Michael's task would be to do the best with the car as it stood while he assessed the damage. There is no evidence presented which compellingly shows that prior to their collision the Benetton was unfit to drive at racing speed. The most plausible evidence presented was the supposition that the impact with the wall might have damaged the front right suspension in a way that made the car pull to the right, and hence we saw Michael continually making steering corrections back to the left.

Much has been made by the prosecution of the idea that Damon attempted to avoid the accident, but Michael did not. If we look at the incident from the time when we know Michael was aware of Damon's position and passing attempt then we have to examine what could have been done at this point to avoid the accident. Damon could have braked. He did this, but given he was taking the tightest possible line at the apex already, and that he was fractions of a second away from impacting the car ahead, braking was probably futile. Michael could not have braked as this would have precipitated an even more certain accident. This is because Hill was not ahead: it was not as if Michael could brake and let Damon run wide, where Michael could have re-taken him on exit by taking a tighter line. Michael could have turned left, but this would have conceded the corner to Hill. To give "racing room", Michael would have had to let Damon control when the apex of the corner was to be taken, which due to his parallel run along the inside, would have been well past the geometric apex of the corner. To avoid an accident Michael would have had to turn left, brake and wait for Damon to take the corner, with Michael taking the corner on a much wider line. This is an unreasonable expectation for a competitive racing driver. From the point Hill chose to brake less or later and go up the inside the accident was effectively inevitable.

The is a precedent in the Prost-Senna 1989 case to consider where the steering actions of Prost after he knew that collision was inevitable were interpreted by the court as damning evidence against Prost. At Adelaide 1994, Michael was steering towards the apex in a series of swerves of diminishing radius, and just before impact he was in the process of straightening the steering wheel away from the apex. Once hit by Damon, he was pushed forward into an understeering slide, so his natural reaction was to regain control by countering the force which was unnaturally pushing his car away from the apex by turning the wheel hard into the apex of the corner, and as he is launched into the air, you can see his left hand on top of the steering wheel, almost turned as far as the 1pm position. This case differs from Prost-Senna 1989, in that once hit by Damon, Schumacher had no option but to turn even further into the apex in an attempt to regain control of the car and drive through the corner. Schumacher would have seen the wheel of the Williams locked in a braking slide, and hence it was unlikely that Damon would then accelerate so they both could continue side-by-side with interlocked wheels. Schumacher had to try to get his rear wheel around the front wheel of the Williams, and an oversteer attempt was his only option.

Many submissions dealt with the issue of how much and when Michael saw Damon in his mirrors. However almost all of this is just speculation on both sides of the argument and must be put aside as such. Nothing in the videos shown proves conclusively that Michael did or did not see Damon at any given moment prior to his sudden head movement a fraction of a second before impact. This sudden head movement of Schumacher was his surprised response to the fact that he and Damon were about to collide. It's likely Schumacher was aware of Damon's presence on the inside line, but it's not likely that he knew it was inevitable that they would collide.

In the end it clearly cannot be proven that Michael Schumacher knew Damon Hill was attempting an overtaking move in time for him to defend it in a fashion that would not cause an accident. Damon was not granted passing room, as Michael was in a car that may or may not have been sufficiently damaged to complete the race in the lead, so there was no obligation for Michael to simply let Damon by, but there was an obligation to handle the situation in a fashion other than just acting as if Hill was not there. It is not for this court to decide what Michael should have done, there being a number of possible reactions available to a late inside-passing attempt like this, but to decide if what he did do was appropriate. Schumacher was aware of Damon, and he was closing the door on any possible overtaking attempt. Whether he was making the assumption that Damon could slow down enough, or whether he was even sure Damon was going to go for it, let alone go so deep that he couldn't stop, is not the issue.

The initial impact between the cars was relatively slight. The incident only became serious - the video very clearly shows when the damage to Hill's car occurred - because of the wheel-to-wheel touching that threw the Benetton onto its side. It was stated in evidence that if Damon had accelerated at the point of impact, and hence pushed Michael out of the way, he might have avoided the destructive wheel-to-wheel impact between two cars travelling at such a large speed difference and hence won the championship. This idea increases the weight behind the conclusion that the fact the accident led to Hill's withdrawal was in fact just a freak effect of the way it happened.

In summary there is nothing solid to suggest that Michael Schumacher deliberately set out to take Damon Hill out of the Australian Grand Prix of 1994. He simply closed the door on his rival, with the intention preventing any possible overtaking move, but not with the intention of deliberate collision. It is more than reasonable to expect a driver in Formula One, especially a championship contender, to be aware of the events on track behind him. This is part of a driver's responsibility to himself and his fellow competitors. Being oblivious to another car is no excuse for ignoring it. The conventional way to defend a 90-degree corner is to take the racing line and close the door on a competitor trying to overtake on the inside. The two trajectories of the racing line and the inside line intersect at such a sharp angle as to make it nearly impossible for Michael to give Damon racing room to turn in alongside him: either Damon had to brake in time, or they would collide. For Michael to give Damon racing room would have meant a very wide line for Michael on the exit, to give Damon the space necessary to turn into the corner, something he had hardly started to do by the time he had arrived at the apex. Due to his off-course excursion at the previous corner and the resultant reduced speeds, the situation was unusual, and Michael should have known an attempt was likely if not certain, and should have been more aware of the position of his rival's car. Michael's mistake was just assuming that ignoring the problems of his off-course excursion and therefore the chasing car being on his rear wing and just taking his line regardless would make it go away. Michael knew the situation was very unusual: you can't really expect to take the racing line unchallenged if you are travelling at less than racing speed.

Michael Schumacher did turn into the corner in a fashion which did not take into account the car behind him, which he should have been aware was likely to attempt an overtake there. Possibly through being more interested in his cars state than his rival's position, possibly through simply not thinking anyone would overtake there, or possibly through just thinking if he strong-armed it, Hill wouldn't go for the pass. Michael did not take sufficient care of his position on track relative to another car. We must conclude that Michael Schumacher caused the incident through reckless negligence, but that there is no evidence whatsoever apart from the circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity that he intended for this to happen.