Reading standard
Statements about misconduct, motive, identity, conspiracy, retaliation, information access, or responsibility should be read according to their stated evidence basis. Original sources control over summaries.
The event is established before the theory
On December 30, 2024, I was struck by a vehicle. The event and resulting injury can be documented through ordinary primary sources: the collision report, medical records, scene photographs or video, device records, witness information, and related contemporaneous material.
Those records should be the starting point. They establish an occurrence and its immediate consequences. They do not automatically establish criminal intent.
What the collision does not prove
- That the driver intended to strike me.
- That another person arranged or requested the collision.
- That money or another benefit was offered for violence.
- That Tommy, Amir, Idene, Ayman, or any other person knew in advance that a collision would occur.
- That any government, contractor, or law-enforcement resource was used.
- That the event was connected to the earlier surveillance or retaliation allegations.
Why I still ask the question
I later began asking whether the collision connected to the broader chronology because of communications and circumstances I had preserved before and around that period. That is a legitimate investigative question if it is presented as a question. The evidentiary error would be treating temporal proximity or an ominous message as conclusive proof of causation.
The evidence required for a deliberate-attack theory
A deliberate-attack theory would need evidence capable of showing planning and participation: communications, instructions, payment or promised benefit where relevant, location and travel evidence, target information, surveillance, device records, witness testimony, or forensic evidence. A murder-for-hire theory has the additional requirement of a murder objective plus money or another thing of pecuniary value and the required interstate or foreign-commerce use.
Why contrary evidence belongs in the file
An evidence-first investigation preserves facts that cut against the theory as carefully as facts that seem to support it. If records point to an ordinary traffic explanation, that matters. If a person could not have communicated, traveled, accessed a record, or participated as alleged, that matters. A theory that cannot survive contrary evidence is not a defensible theory.
Current status
I continue to treat intentional causation as unproved. The appropriate path is preservation and lawful investigation, not public certainty.