Here we go again ...
The sister publication to the British
magazine Autosport launched its April edition
onto an unsuspecting public this week. The front cover of
F1 Racing, published also in Holland and Germany,
carries the splash:
"SENNA - SENSATIONAL
Inside the magazine there is a 'welcome'
message from the editor to their new signing, the ex-Williams
employee, Peter Windsor.
F1 Racing: the evidence they dis-missed
Headlined "Remember where you
saw it first - The evidence they missed" - the article
presents nothing to its readers that hasn't already been trumpeted.
It depicts the photograph first published
by the British Sunday Times newspaper on February
16 1997 (which accompanied an article co-authored by Peter Windsor)
plus another, which we are told is "the next frame, shot
after Senna's car had passed by".
Any explanation regarding the exact position
of the possible debris is not a fact that the unidentified author
seems to value, for that information was not included.
Some time ago the photographer Paul-Henri
Cahier was reported as saying the apparent debris was
5 seconds from the point where Senna left the track.
We think, in reality, 5 seconds may prove
"Schumacher's Benetton about to
straddle the stray bodywork. Look very carefully and you'll see
that it has been flattened, suggesting that Senna's car has just
run it over
" says the photo's caption.
Has it ever been proved the object
was bodywork? Has it ever been proved there was an object? If
so, has anyone actually identified the object and/or its position?
For obvious reasons F1 Racing's scoop
is not fully reproduced here, but we feel 'duty-bound' to
make the following observations --
The article begins: "To the background
of Italy's new-found legal correctness the Senna trial ground
Why say it is 'new-found' the 'law
of the land' is nothing NEW?
"The public prosecutor, Maurizio
Passarini, also declared that he would admit as evidence a photo
taken by regular contributor to F1 Racing, Paul-Henri Cahier."
Maurizio Passarini, aware of the photographs
since the accident, said they were nothing new and not relevant
to the cause of the crash.
Racing's GP consultant Peter Windsor, pointed out that
the bright colour - and location - of the bodywork could well
have caused Senna to change slightly his trajectory into Tamburello
- placing him on a series of bumps that he would have normally
Well... At the trial Formula 1 driver
Pierluigi Martini said: The bump effect was normal.
Michele Alboreto said: Senna's shift
to the right makes me think it was a mechanical failure. The
bumps on the Imola track surface were minor and would not have
forced Senna's car off the track.
Re Senna's Williams: "And at this
point, remember that the tyre pressures were down and it's tyre
surface temperatures low."
But were they? Reports stated Senna
with a fully loaded car clocked 1 min 24.887sec on the sixth
lap of the restarted race.
Only two drivers bettered it - Damon
Hill and Michael Schumacher and that was at the end of the San
Marino Grand Prix.
A feeble justification?
"The F1 world in part seemed convinced
that Windsor's article, which also uncovered Senna's habit
of occasionally holding his breath for the opening lap of a race,
had been 'placed' by the Williams team in order to bolster their
"Totally untrue," says Windsor.
"I began to research the story in August last year, long
before the trial dates were known, and always knew I would be
unable to tap any sources I may have had at Williams."
Theories involving 'breathing' and/or
'mediums' deserve no further comment...
Press reports in June 1996 stated
that Maurizio Passarini was asking for manslaughter charges to
The Sunday Times newspaper stated
that when they learnt of the pictures Cahier agreed to publication.
So seemingly, it took from August
1996 until FOUR days before the start of the Senna trial on February
20 1997 for Peter Windsor's contribution: "Photograph explains
riddle of Senna's Death" to be completed ...