UNA CU NATURA
The perpetrator of the attempted murder was not detained, as is customary for a violent act, nor was he sought by investigators, even though he fled the scene. From the first orders issued by Prosecutor Dorel Herban, the investigators acted with double standards, collecting evidence from only one side, thereby favoring the group that instigated the violence at Râul Alb. This practice continued throughout the criminal investigation. (video 14.1)
Nothing official is known about Alin Andrioni from 1:00 PM until around 5:00 PM, when he appears at the Hațeg Police Station, where his car is examined. During this time, the activists fabricated evidence, as shown in previous episodes, while the criminal investigation bodies were present and directly collaborating with the perpetrators. Andrioni Alin—the driver who ran over me and fled the scene—was not subjected to biological sampling for alcohol testing, even though investigators knew he had attended a party the night before the attempted murder. Andrioni stated before the prosecutor that he celebrated his birthday at a guesthouse in Retezat. Therefore, there were "reasonable suspicions" that he was under the influence of alcohol when he dragged me under the wheels of his jeep. Even the examination of the car was...
... a deal without witnesses, an understanding
Regarding the examination of the vehicle involved in the attempted murder, several irregularities can be noted, starting with the prosecutor's orders stating: "Conducting the search of the off-road vehicle, Hyundai Galloper, three-door, navy blue, with the lower part of the doors and fenders gray" (doc.1). These details show that the relevant parts of the car's body were not specified, even though it was already certain that the car had run over me. Normally, samples should have been taken from the areas where I had contact with the car: the front bumper and under the car, where I was rolled and scraped against the body. No samples were taken from these areas, even though fresh blood traces were found on the ground at 1:30 PM, when the on-site investigation was conducted. In Photos 25-26, it can be seen that a stainless steel bull-bar was mounted on the front of the car, where a fragment of a papillary print was discovered, confirming that I had my hands on that bar. Forensic police officers from the Hunedoara County Police Inspectorate examined the vehicle in the Hațeg police yard and drafted the report between 8:40 PM and 9:40 PM.
Furthermore, in the footage filmed by Weidinger Gerit from inside the car, it is visible that I had my hands on those front bars and held onto them the entire time from when I was taken onto the hood until I was thrown under the car (doc.2). These elements were neglected, but that's not all. The car's examination was not conducted in the presence of our lawyer—Mihai Pașca, who had submitted the power of attorney for representation and assistance before the police (doc.3). According to the report prepared by Inspector Ștefan Bogdan Groza from the Hunedoara County Police Inspectorate, the examination was conducted only in the presence of the perpetrator, assisted by his lawyer. Without any witness and in the absence of any representative of the injured party. Attention! We're talking about a case opened for attempted murder, where the "weapon of the crime" is examined only in the presence of the offender and his defender.
Stupidity leaves fingerprints on the investigation trail
The police did not even respect the brief indications provided by the prosecutor in the ORDER, where it states that I was injured "with the lower part of the doors." The examiners provide no information about this part of the vehicle; instead, they present in great detail the fingerprints left on the windows and doors. As if the victim of the attempted murder was the car that hit me.
It's astounding that, although fingerprints were collected, the "authorities" did not attempt to determine whose they were. No one, ever, was fingerprinted for comparison with the collected samples. Most likely, the investigators realized that the fingerprints on the jeep could not be ours. All the scratches and dents on the car's body were made with hard objects, but the evidence shows that the people present at the scene had nothing in their hands when the tragedy occurred. Only after the jeep ran over me did those accompanying me shout at the driver to stop and then ran after the car, throwing stones. However, the vehicle had already moved away, and they couldn't have scratched or hit it from the side, as shown in the photo panels.
The scratches appearing in the photo panels from the report prepared by the forensic police were not made at the scene. The way the car's examination was conducted leads me to believe that Andrioni vandalized his car before bringing it to the police, to justify his criminal act. Why did the prosecutors and police "omit" to ask witnesses who and with what hit the car at the scene? Why didn't they investigate where and for what purpose the car was damaged after leaving the attempted murder scenFor anyone willing to correctly analyze the data, it becomes evident that the unfinished investigation of the fingerprints and scratches on the car served only to suggest that we had vandalized the offender's jeep.
