OK, I guess I have been remiss in adding to this document. I am sure my detractors would say this is a result of my personal laziness. This seems to always be the case. But I did say that I would use this space for a forum, and so today I am going to try and say a few pertinent words about the situation.
Before I go on though, don’t know how long this entry is going to be, and so if you are only looking for the brief overview of the case, simply scroll down to the next entry. And, I am thinking of adding the text of some of the plays that I mention in the text of the book. I will say more about that when I get that stuff sorted out.
To tell the truth of the situation I am sick as hell of havuiing to deal with either the case or the situation. I think I would love to just “go on with my life” but you see, my life is rather screwed because of what has happened. Anyway, I will have to talk about THAT at another time too…
Anyway, as I have been everyday for the last two years or so, I have been thinking a lot about the case lately. I think that there are a few things that could be better explained than the format of the book allowed. Because I wrote the book in a relatively linear fashion, there were some revelations about the events depicted that were not really possible because of available space. One of those things was probably the most vital part of the whole case, that being the story made by Zaremba that that “officially” kept me in Poland. My point of view was that he was telling lies about my actions and that once we come to grips with that, the real story comes out, and we all can finally understand what happened. This business about whether or not Zaremba was lying though is separate from the prosecutors agreeing to help him, the lawyers not defending me, my own embassy’s negative involvement or the courts refusal to deal with the case fairly. Those issues can be dealt with on another day.
So for right now, let me lead you through Zaremba’s story piece by piece so that you can get an idea of what constituted “evidence” in the case made against me by Poland.
Let me start this account at the parking lot of the police station (The KSP) about 150 meters from the intersection where our little moment took place. The arresting officer, a Mr. Tomas Jucha was called to deal with out incident and took a statement from Zaremba that sounded something like:
“…in one moment, the biker rode from behind the city bus. Mr. Zareba, when he saw the biker in front of the hood, he started to slow down. Zareba stopped the car in front of the biker, but he didn't injure the biker in any way. But the biker went to Zareba and punched him in the face while standing next to the car.”
(The full texts of this report as well as Jucha’s court statement, Zaremba’s court testimony and the testimony of his other witness can be found in Chapter 26 of Being Had.)
Now this sounds a lot like what I said had happened really. But when Zaremba got to the police station he decided that this was a better depiction of the events:
“I was coming to the crossroads with Andersa Street; I was driving in the left lane. There was no car in back of me and in the middle lane, there was a city bus. And the biker was heading to the bus. He quickly changed lanes a few meters in front of me. I made a signal so that I wouldn’t hit him. The biker then changed back into the middle lane and I came to the crossroads before the lights. I saw in the rear view mirror that the biker was approaching between the bus and the cars that were in back of me in the left lane. When he passed my car, he threw away his bike and came to my right side and punched three times in my hood with his fist.” (From Chapter 11)
Now the difference here is that he now claims I made a bad riding maneuver and that he had cleanly parked, and now apparently there were other cars in back of him. And of course, there is the statement that I could cleanly pass him. The next day though, sitting with Wiesniakowski, his story changes somewhat to the following:
“ this man was riding (his bike) in the right lane and he was in front of my car to my right. When I was approaching him in my lane, he quickly changed his lane without signal coming into my lane. Not seeing the possibility to stop (avoid him) I used signals that made this biker change back to his lane and we continued (on our way). When we came to the crosswalk, I stopped on the signal and to my right; the bus had stopped there. This was the same bus that was the one the biker was behind.
Normally, a bike should wait in a cue (wait in line) with the others (cars) but he was riding between the cars. And after I arrived at the crosswalk he came to me and without warning punched with his hand the side of the car while passing me. He did this because he didn't have enough room between my car and the bus.
Next (he) put down the bike in front of my car and punched with his hands into the hood, the roof and the quarter panel of my car while screaming in English with spit (frothing?) coming out of his mouth.” (Also chapter 11)
In this version I again can still pass, but I take the trouble to administer a signal hit as I am going by.
On August 30th Zaremba got another chance to tell his version of the story and this time he has become much safer, and the situation at the bus is made much clearer:
“While I was getting to the junction, my car didn’t have and contact with Mr. Goodman’s bike, (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.
I had to brake, so I would not have a collision with the biker, who was earlier cycling on the right lane, then on the middle lane and then almost perpendicular, he came into the left lane.
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.
He was behind me when I got to the junction.
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
He had problems with fitting between the vehicles and the bus and it seems that this made him angry.
When he was passing my car, he was rocking on his bike
He hit into the roof several times with his fist and after driving in front of my car, he threw his bike down on the ground… and his following behavior I described in my previous testimony.”
So Now I have hit the car several times but can still pass.
In court though, that part of the story changed in a couple of ways. The first change was that now when I was passing his car, I did this:
“When he was riding next to my car, he put his right hand on the bus and the left side of his handlebars into my car. When he was in the middle of my car, he punched the roof three times and kicked the front mirror… he lifted his bike up in front of him, then he lifted it and threw it in front of the Renault, the bike hit the front bumper.” (All of this is from Chapter 26)
So now it is THREE times hitting the roof AND a kick to the front mirror. But not only that, this time, he actually admits that I CAN”T PASS HIM, but must lift the bike up and walk around his car. He says this twice that day. I’ll talk about that more in a moment.
I wanted some details so I asked him to be specific about where exactly this biking maneuver was to have supposed to have taken place. He answered:
“ When cyclist wanted to cut in front of my way I was about 120 meters from the crossing. I am not however sure exactly.” And then added under questioning these details:
“ The cyclist surely moved slower than bus. When cyclist wanted to cut in front of my way I was about 120 meters from the crossing. I am not however sure exactly.
The distance between my car and the bus was a good 5 meters. I was going about 40-50km/h.”
Now this makes everything really clear because this of course is physically impossible. If he is only five meters from the bus and going at speed I have to make my move and retreat in the space of, accounting for the speed and the distance represented, about 1/3 of a second. He wants the move to be well away from the stop because he need for me to be well in back of the bus so I can wait there for him to be first in a line of three cars. But unfortunately for his story, he is making a picture in which he is clearly going much faster than the bus. For this to have happened, the bus would have to already be at the stop and not at a place on the street where it would still be going about 40 to 50 Kmh. The story and his distances do however work really well if we add these to Jucha’s story (and my own) and have the incident take place at the stop.
Why does he say these things? Well, because he is trying to hide what he did which was that he tried to hit me with his car while he was passing me and then slid to a stop just in front of me pinning me to the bus.
Now about his changing the story about my having to carry the bike. If, I can pass by cleanly, like he depicted in the first two accounts, why does he now have me ramming my handlebars into his car? Well, he does this because on August 30th, he added a story about a black mark he later found on the car that was not found by the inspector because the inspection was done in the rain. I think he added this story by means of his trying to explain away the “water damage” to his hood that evidenced that his car had been previously damaged. Unfortunately for the story, by adding these details, Zaremba creates a picture where it is possible for me to pass only the back half of the car, but I must lift the bike up and over the car to pass the front half. And of course, if this is the case, that means the car is at an angle and not squared to the lane, which again is exactly my story, and more so, the story told to Yucha.
Was he lying? Of course. Check it out and see for yourself.
I could go one even more about Zaremba’s story. I could go on about a lot of other things that were connected to this case. I’ll do more of this in the next few days. Or just read the book.
Right now though, I am busy getting the press into this. I have done everything I could to make this story as public as I can. I only hope that it will help. The note I have written to some of the people whose names show up in the book reads like this:
“I am writing today to tell you about a book I wrote about my time in Poland. Your names are mentioned along with the story of your involvement. I don’t think that what I wrote about you is personally insulting, but I do feel that your representations of me was criminal and I have represented those details as clearly as I could.
Poland for me was a rather a disaster for me. My life has been ripped completely apart because of what happened.
I have published the book over the web and I am informing all of the principals from Poland and the American Embassy who were in the book. I have also informed the American press.
You can take a look at the book at:
http://beinghad.blogspot.com
You can write me at this address to let me know what you think.
Yours, Adam Goodman
I guess that’s all for today. I’ll write here again and tell you what has happened
Before I go on though, don’t know how long this entry is going to be, and so if you are only looking for the brief overview of the case, simply scroll down to the next entry. And, I am thinking of adding the text of some of the plays that I mention in the text of the book. I will say more about that when I get that stuff sorted out.
To tell the truth of the situation I am sick as hell of havuiing to deal with either the case or the situation. I think I would love to just “go on with my life” but you see, my life is rather screwed because of what has happened. Anyway, I will have to talk about THAT at another time too…
Anyway, as I have been everyday for the last two years or so, I have been thinking a lot about the case lately. I think that there are a few things that could be better explained than the format of the book allowed. Because I wrote the book in a relatively linear fashion, there were some revelations about the events depicted that were not really possible because of available space. One of those things was probably the most vital part of the whole case, that being the story made by Zaremba that that “officially” kept me in Poland. My point of view was that he was telling lies about my actions and that once we come to grips with that, the real story comes out, and we all can finally understand what happened. This business about whether or not Zaremba was lying though is separate from the prosecutors agreeing to help him, the lawyers not defending me, my own embassy’s negative involvement or the courts refusal to deal with the case fairly. Those issues can be dealt with on another day.
So for right now, let me lead you through Zaremba’s story piece by piece so that you can get an idea of what constituted “evidence” in the case made against me by Poland.
Let me start this account at the parking lot of the police station (The KSP) about 150 meters from the intersection where our little moment took place. The arresting officer, a Mr. Tomas Jucha was called to deal with out incident and took a statement from Zaremba that sounded something like:
“…in one moment, the biker rode from behind the city bus. Mr. Zareba, when he saw the biker in front of the hood, he started to slow down. Zareba stopped the car in front of the biker, but he didn't injure the biker in any way. But the biker went to Zareba and punched him in the face while standing next to the car.”
(The full texts of this report as well as Jucha’s court statement, Zaremba’s court testimony and the testimony of his other witness can be found in Chapter 26 of Being Had.)
Now this sounds a lot like what I said had happened really. But when Zaremba got to the police station he decided that this was a better depiction of the events:
“I was coming to the crossroads with Andersa Street; I was driving in the left lane. There was no car in back of me and in the middle lane, there was a city bus. And the biker was heading to the bus. He quickly changed lanes a few meters in front of me. I made a signal so that I wouldn’t hit him. The biker then changed back into the middle lane and I came to the crossroads before the lights. I saw in the rear view mirror that the biker was approaching between the bus and the cars that were in back of me in the left lane. When he passed my car, he threw away his bike and came to my right side and punched three times in my hood with his fist.” (From Chapter 11)
Now the difference here is that he now claims I made a bad riding maneuver and that he had cleanly parked, and now apparently there were other cars in back of him. And of course, there is the statement that I could cleanly pass him. The next day though, sitting with Wiesniakowski, his story changes somewhat to the following:
“ this man was riding (his bike) in the right lane and he was in front of my car to my right. When I was approaching him in my lane, he quickly changed his lane without signal coming into my lane. Not seeing the possibility to stop (avoid him) I used signals that made this biker change back to his lane and we continued (on our way). When we came to the crosswalk, I stopped on the signal and to my right; the bus had stopped there. This was the same bus that was the one the biker was behind.
Normally, a bike should wait in a cue (wait in line) with the others (cars) but he was riding between the cars. And after I arrived at the crosswalk he came to me and without warning punched with his hand the side of the car while passing me. He did this because he didn't have enough room between my car and the bus.
Next (he) put down the bike in front of my car and punched with his hands into the hood, the roof and the quarter panel of my car while screaming in English with spit (frothing?) coming out of his mouth.” (Also chapter 11)
In this version I again can still pass, but I take the trouble to administer a signal hit as I am going by.
On August 30th Zaremba got another chance to tell his version of the story and this time he has become much safer, and the situation at the bus is made much clearer:
“While I was getting to the junction, my car didn’t have and contact with Mr. Goodman’s bike, (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.
I had to brake, so I would not have a collision with the biker, who was earlier cycling on the right lane, then on the middle lane and then almost perpendicular, he came into the left lane.
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.
He was behind me when I got to the junction.
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
He had problems with fitting between the vehicles and the bus and it seems that this made him angry.
When he was passing my car, he was rocking on his bike
He hit into the roof several times with his fist and after driving in front of my car, he threw his bike down on the ground… and his following behavior I described in my previous testimony.”
So Now I have hit the car several times but can still pass.
In court though, that part of the story changed in a couple of ways. The first change was that now when I was passing his car, I did this:
“When he was riding next to my car, he put his right hand on the bus and the left side of his handlebars into my car. When he was in the middle of my car, he punched the roof three times and kicked the front mirror… he lifted his bike up in front of him, then he lifted it and threw it in front of the Renault, the bike hit the front bumper.” (All of this is from Chapter 26)
So now it is THREE times hitting the roof AND a kick to the front mirror. But not only that, this time, he actually admits that I CAN”T PASS HIM, but must lift the bike up and walk around his car. He says this twice that day. I’ll talk about that more in a moment.
I wanted some details so I asked him to be specific about where exactly this biking maneuver was to have supposed to have taken place. He answered:
“ When cyclist wanted to cut in front of my way I was about 120 meters from the crossing. I am not however sure exactly.” And then added under questioning these details:
“ The cyclist surely moved slower than bus. When cyclist wanted to cut in front of my way I was about 120 meters from the crossing. I am not however sure exactly.
The distance between my car and the bus was a good 5 meters. I was going about 40-50km/h.”
Now this makes everything really clear because this of course is physically impossible. If he is only five meters from the bus and going at speed I have to make my move and retreat in the space of, accounting for the speed and the distance represented, about 1/3 of a second. He wants the move to be well away from the stop because he need for me to be well in back of the bus so I can wait there for him to be first in a line of three cars. But unfortunately for his story, he is making a picture in which he is clearly going much faster than the bus. For this to have happened, the bus would have to already be at the stop and not at a place on the street where it would still be going about 40 to 50 Kmh. The story and his distances do however work really well if we add these to Jucha’s story (and my own) and have the incident take place at the stop.
Why does he say these things? Well, because he is trying to hide what he did which was that he tried to hit me with his car while he was passing me and then slid to a stop just in front of me pinning me to the bus.
Now about his changing the story about my having to carry the bike. If, I can pass by cleanly, like he depicted in the first two accounts, why does he now have me ramming my handlebars into his car? Well, he does this because on August 30th, he added a story about a black mark he later found on the car that was not found by the inspector because the inspection was done in the rain. I think he added this story by means of his trying to explain away the “water damage” to his hood that evidenced that his car had been previously damaged. Unfortunately for the story, by adding these details, Zaremba creates a picture where it is possible for me to pass only the back half of the car, but I must lift the bike up and over the car to pass the front half. And of course, if this is the case, that means the car is at an angle and not squared to the lane, which again is exactly my story, and more so, the story told to Yucha.
Was he lying? Of course. Check it out and see for yourself.
I could go one even more about Zaremba’s story. I could go on about a lot of other things that were connected to this case. I’ll do more of this in the next few days. Or just read the book.
Right now though, I am busy getting the press into this. I have done everything I could to make this story as public as I can. I only hope that it will help. The note I have written to some of the people whose names show up in the book reads like this:
“I am writing today to tell you about a book I wrote about my time in Poland. Your names are mentioned along with the story of your involvement. I don’t think that what I wrote about you is personally insulting, but I do feel that your representations of me was criminal and I have represented those details as clearly as I could.
Poland for me was a rather a disaster for me. My life has been ripped completely apart because of what happened.
I have published the book over the web and I am informing all of the principals from Poland and the American Embassy who were in the book. I have also informed the American press.
You can take a look at the book at:
http://beinghad.blogspot.com
You can write me at this address to let me know what you think.
Yours, Adam Goodman
I guess that’s all for today. I’ll write here again and tell you what has happened
posted by BEING HAD at
10:20 AM
<< Home