Coulthard said the movement shown by Senna’s steering column/wheel was perfectly acceptable. Coulthard stated that in 1994 it was normal for the Williams’ steering column to move both up and down and left and right by several milimetres, and for the driver’s hands to rub against the cockpit. As the steering wheel was constructed of carbon fibre this would also flex. He said the regulations had since been changed, and the collapsible steering wheels were much stiffer.
Passarini asked Coulthard if he knew how much ‘play’ there was in the steering column, independently of the steering wheel. Coulthard retorted: “No, I have never done that test because I have never driven a car without a steering wheel.” His remarks brought the house down – even the dourest of the Italian court officials found them amusing.
The court was shown the video of Coulthard sitting in a stationary Williams Formula One car, showing the movement in the steering wheel. After reading Coulthard’s oral testimony, Alboreto told reporters that he had never before experienced that behaviour in a steering wheel.
On 29th October the trial resumed amid great anticipation: Frank Williams, Patrick Head and Adrian Newey were due to personally testify. In the event neither Newey nor Head turned up – they informed the court via their lawyers that they had exercised their rights not to answer questions, and opted to submit written statements at a later date. But Frank Williams had arrived in Italy the previous day in his own plane and apologised for being late arriving from his hotel. The trial was adjourned to await his arrival, expected by late morning.
When he finally arrived, Passarini asked him about the Williams team’s own internal investigations. Williams said: “We were looking for as much fact as possible and were anxious to see as much television footage as we could. We as a company formed the opinion that the steering column did not break. This was decided after examining the telemetry readings and also a lot of simulations.”
Williams went on to say that the team had considered various explanations, but he did not offer a theory for the cause of Ayrton Senna’s crash. He did say he remembered that alterations were made to the steering column after 1st May. “I remember that all the remaining cars were checked and were OK. Even so, we decided to change the columns and manufacture different versions to remove any doubt about integrity.”
Asked whether he had any doubts about Senna’s steering column, Williams replied: “Absolutely. We had doubts, that’s why we’re here today, trying to find out what happened.”
Passarini asked Williams why Senna’s steering column was modified. Williams said: “Ayrton wanted more room in the cockpit and it was decided to change the steering column. When it was decided, I don’t remember. There would have been communication with all the relevant people. I can’t be accurate or specific because I do not follow, and never have done, every operation on a daily basis.”
Williams said he didn’t know who was responsible for making the changes, only that many people would have been involved. “Senna made three or four pages of recommendations to make the car go faster after every practice session. I remember that he was not happy about the amount of space, and there were many other things he wanted to change. He also wanted a very large steering wheel – it was one of his trademarks,” he said.
Williams said that he was not aware changes had been made until after the race. Passarini offered a judgement on Senna’s opinion of the car, which Williams rejected, saying: “The driver did not say he could not drive the car, rather that he would like more space so he would be less tired in the latter half of the race.”
Passarini brought up the fact that the Williams team’s own experts had discovered over 40 per cent metal fatigue in Senna’s steering column. Williams said: “But I’m certain that the plane I arrived in yesterday had cracks in it.”
Pushed further about any action he would have taken had he known the extent of the metal fatigue in Senna’s column, Frank Williams restated that he was not responsible for technical issues.
Speaking to reporters later outside the court, Williams said: “We’ll probably never know what happened. But I made it clear in court today that we think that the car probably left the road rather than suffered a steering column failure.”
Williams was effectively the last witness for the trial. The summings-up were scheduled to begin on 7th November. On that day Maurizio Passarini, after nine months of legal action regarding Ayrton Senna’s death, gave his closing statement to the court at Imola. The state prosecutor first recapped the events leading up to the fatal crash, again focusing on the steering-column modifications made by Williams. He referred to the events of that tragic Imola weekend, the death in qualifying of Roland Ratzenberger, the initial accident at the start of the race, the deployment of the safety car and the race restart.
Passarini said that driver error must be excluded. Two investigations by independent laboratories reached the same conclusion. The steering column had signs of fatigue over 75 per cent of the circumference and 40 per cent of the section. Reference was made to the testimony given by defence witness David Coulthard regarding the normality of the two centimetres of oscillations shown on a Williams steering column.
Almost certainly with a view to undermining comments made earlier by Frank Williams, Passarini made a point of highlighting the fact that after the race restart, Senna clocked what would prove to be the third-fastest lap of the race, discounting many theories – including Williams’ – that a loss of tyre pressure, due to the cooling of the tyres whilst following the safety car, could have caused Senna’s loss of control.
Passarini also introduced the multimedia evidence showing the behaviour of the car, telemetric information and Senna’s last moments at the wheel. He made it clear that he was unhappy with some aspects of the defence, for example the data recorder installed in Senna’s Williams-Renault. This box was said to have been smashed during the accident with vital information it contained thus lost.
Passarini said that Senna’s data recorder contained 20 memory chips, but only two were damaged – those whose data would have been retained even when the power supply failed. “It must be a coincidence, but it makes you wonder if someone was very jealous regarding its contents,” he said.
In a surprise move, the state prosecutor announced that certain officials from the Formula One Constructors’ Association (FOCA) were to be investigated over alleged false testimonies. The probe was to be carried out by the Bologna attorney’s office.
Passarini talked about the problems he had encountered in obtaining the final footage from Senna’s in-car camera. He claimed that the responses given by the FOCA TV employees were ‘disconcerting or downright comic, if not tragic’. He said that Bernie Ecclestone, at one time expected to be called as a witness, was not directly concerned with the investigation. He did indicate, however, that letters Ecclestone has sent to the legal authorities would be examined to see if there was a separate case to answer.
This could relate to the film taken from Senna’s on-board camera. The Williams team was provided with the footage within a week of Senna’s death, Passarini’s office took over six months to obtain the tape. He said: “This is typical of the disdain with which the Formula One world has treated this enquiry.”
Passarini also attacked Francesco Longanesi Cattani, the FIA’s press supremo, and said he may face an investigation. He did not say what for.
Passarini always contended that the footage supplied from Senna’s in-car camera was incomplete because it stopped 0.9 seconds before Senna’s fatal impact. He said that nine minutes had been spent following Senna’s Williams and therefore it was comical to believe that it was ‘sheer coincidence’ that FOCA TV staff decided to switch shots just before impact.
He did not believe the testimonies given by the FOCA TV employees, who maintained that the car camera was switched from Senna’s vehicle to that of Gerhard Berger’s by chance. “A moment later Ayrton Senna was dead,” he said.
The state prosecutor maintained that the cam
era was still running at the time of the crash and said he believed the missing footage would have proved his case: that the steering column snapped whilst Senna was still on the track.
Then dramatically and without warning, Passarini recommended that all charges against Frank Williams, Roland Bruynseraede, Federico Bendinelli and Giorgio Poggi be dropped. He said that as both Frank Williams and Federico Bendinelli merely dealt with the administrative side of the business they could not be held directly responsible for the crash that claimed Ayrton Senna’s life.
Passarini said that although safety standards at Tamburello were questionable, Poggi and Bruynseraede did not commit any crime. Senna was killed not by his car’s impact with the Tamburello wall but because a piece of suspension pierced his helmet, causing fatal head injuries. He said that the question was whether, if his car had been travelling at a lower speed, Senna would still have died: as this issue was in doubt, charges should be dropped. It begged the question why Passarini had wasted the court’s time and seriously complicated the trial by charging the men in the first place.
However, he then went on to say that both Patrick Head and Adrian Newey should be convicted as they were both ultimately responsible for the design changes made to Senna’s car. The state prosecutor claimed that the fact that Senna asked for modifications didn’t reduce the responsibility of the accused. He recommended that the court award one-year suspended sentences to both defendants. The maximum sentence is five years. “Newey and Head designed the steering column modifications badly, and especially, did not check how the plan was put into execution,” he said.
There was no guarantee that the judge would take Passarini’s advice to acquit four men, but from that point on it was deemed a formality.
Federico Bendinelli said afterwards: “I was convinced the circuit bore no responsibility for what happened, and neither did Frank Williams. His position was the same as mine. I was calm and confident from the start.”
Friday 14th November saw Adrian Newey’s lawyers Landi and Stortoni in action. They argued that Newey was not directly involved with the alterations to Senna’s steering column. The prosecution, they maintained, should have taken account of the actions of the two technicians responsible for the steering modifications, namely Young and Fisher.
Stortoni said the prosecution felt that, although Newey had not worked on the modifications directly, he was ultimately responsible. But there was no proof that Newey ordered the job. In fact when Williams held an internal investigation into the cause of the accident, Newey wasn’t even asked to attend.
The final session for the defence came on 18th November with closing statements from Patrick Head’s lawyers, Dominioni and Gandossi. Dominioni’s strategy was to try and dissect the prosecution’s case. He launched a lengthy attack on the prosecution’s technical advisers, saying that Passarini had never asked them whether a lack of stability in Senna’s car, due to the track surface, could have caused the fatal crash.
Dominioni told the court: “Passarini’s reconstruction of the incident which cost the life of Ayrton Senna has no basis in proof, it is unfounded and those accused must be cleared.” He said that Senna’s steering column was the same as Damon Hill’s, both having been designed prior to the start of the 1994 racing season. Looking at the testimony of one of the prosecution’s experts, Dominioni said it was not possible to say whether a part constructed with the safety equal to a coefficient of one could have broken.
The fatigue on the piece emphasised by the prosecution should have been revealed at 350,000 cycles (a cycle is any fit application that provokes wear on the part); but the steering column, inspected after the first two Grand Prix races of the season, had experienced 27,000 cycles, a value clearly lower than the safety limit. The question then was when and why, because up to the last control check with the penetrating liquids, this had not been highlighted. “Unfortunately, in life exists the unpredictable, the unforeseen event and the inexplicable,” Dominioni said.
He asserted that there were contradictions within the prosecution’s case, above all those of Forghieri concerning the tyre pressure. On the fundamental point of the tyre pressure, he said the prosecution’s experts had relied on presumptive evaluations, not actual data. The Goodyear tyre company disagreed with Forghieri, claiming that the prosecution’s reconstructions were wrong. The temporal logic and dynamics of the incident, which began at the time of 11.24 seconds as a consequence of a violent collision on the track, caused one swerve of the car, and resultant oversteer as Senna tried to correct.
Dominioni said the prosecution maintained that the steering column broke causing Senna’s Williams to veer to the right, and in his 60 metres off the track Senna didn’t try to steer. The defence maintained that this was not because the wheels didn’t react to the steering, but because Senna with great clarity kept the wheels straight to achieve the best possible braking.
He said it was useless to compare the Friday session times with those of the accident because conditions were unequal. As Senna’s on-board camera was not fixed rigidly, the film was not reliable due to optical illusions.
Dominioni recalled that Michele Alboreto had accused Coulthard of not speaking the truth about the oscillations of the Williams’ steering wheel. He stated that Alboreto in turn was unreliable and prejudiced. He said: “I therefore ask for the acquittal of [Frank] Williams and Head for they have not committed any crime. The incident didn’t occur through the breaking of the steering column.”
Dominioni said that the cause of Senna’s fatal loss of control was still unknown. He reiterated the theory given by Frank Williams, who had earlier stated that Ayrton Senna’s crash could have been the result of a combination of cold tyres and the uneven track surface.
On 19th November the defence lawyers continued their summing-up speeches. Although the prosecutor had cleared Giorgio Poggi, his lawyer – and nephew – Manrico Bonetti still went ahead. He said that after a long career, which started in 1973 as a track inspector, Poggi was due to retire after the Imola race on 1st May 1994. He maintained that Poggi was a scrupulous executive and there was a limit to his responsibilities. He asked therefore for a full acquittal.
On Wednesday 12th November, Roland Bruynseraede’s lawyer, Roberto Causo, said the personalities of the prosecution’s team of experts had strongly conditioned the investigation. He argued that if the prosecution’s case were to be believed, then the Imola track was in breach of the regulations and would have to be demolished and rebuilt.
Landi, for Sagis, concluded that Bendinelli and Poggi had had operational roles since 1980. Then the alterations to the circuit, requested and designed by Nosetto, were already approved and under construction. Their activities had always been subject to FIA scrutiny.
On 21st November, at the penultimate hearing of the trial, Maurizio Passarini replied to the defence’s closing statements.
The state prosecutor told the court that the Tamburello curve, even though subjected to alterations in 1989, was still a very dangerous place, exposing cars to high mechanical stress. The modifications previously undertaken should have encompassed the elevating of the shoulder by 30-40cm to conform to the regulations.
Passarini disproved the objections raised by the Williams defence, saying that it was untrue that the prosecution’s experts had not considered the theory of instability, which in one out of 50 cases could account for a car leaving the track. He said that all aspects of the track had been examined, and everyone was aware that the underside of the car had made violent contact with the ground.
The state prosecutor maintained that Williams’ reconstruction of the incident must be discounted. He claimed that the team’s data was disproved by the telemetry, which did not show that Senna, whilst trying to correct an oversteer problem, had understeered. He said it was in fact quite the opposite – what impressed about Senna’s car was that, with the diminution of the lateral acceleration, the torsion applied to the steering column reached zero, which signified that Senna
had abandoned using the steering.
Passarini said Senna did this not to achieve optimum braking but because, at this point, the steering column broke. Had the steering column been performing normally, the telemetry should have shown this.
He said it was permissible to have doubts about when and where Senna’s steering column was modified, but that it was pointless to say that the steering column on Hill’s car was of the same standard. He said: “It is not a valid defence to say that this breaking is considered an unpredictable phenomenon and that there is not a causal link between the incident and the death of the driver. The breaking of the steering column was the main cause – without this the car would not have left the track. Because of the senior positions held by Head and Newey at Williams, they cannot claim to be exempt from the responsibilities of quality control.”
Adrian Newey’s lawyer quickly concluded the day’s proceedings: the defence’s main argument was unassailable, he said. Williams and Head’s lawyer had done most of his talking for him.
On 26th November 1997, the nine-month trial into Ayrton Senna’s death drew to a close. State prosecutor Maurizio Passarini repeated his request for Adrian Newey and Patrick Head to be found guilty of manslaughter, having dropped the charges against Federico Bendinelli, Giorgio Poggi, Roland Bruynseraede and Frank Williams.
Asking for the acquittal of their respective clients, the various lawyers for the six accused gave their final statements. Judge Antonio Costanzo retired to consider the verdict, which he said he would announce at 1.30pm on 16th December 1997. Judge Costanzo proved remarkably accurate. At the appointed time he delivered the verdict everyone had expected, clearing all six defendants of manslaughter charges arising from Ayrton Senna’s death. The defendants’ legal teams punched the air in celebration.
The judge had ignored Maurizio Passarini’s recommendations for one-year suspended sentences to be delivered to Patrick Head and Adrian Newey. He said he would publish his reasons within 90 days. None of the defendants was present to hear the verdicts.
The Life of Senna Page 57