[tirod]

It's a known fact in the police sciences you can get entirely different stories of what occurred in an incident by eyewitnesses at the scene. It has to be assembled into a timeline to reproduce the actual event.

What cannot be done is accept stories second hand. It's also a known fact in investigations that the first report is always wrong. Why? It's just one perspective of the event filtered by their view and influenced by their life experience. One person's "black marks" on polished concrete may be another's "scuff marks." If there aren't puddles of melted rubber oozing from the tread voids and pooling together, a third party may dismiss them entirely.

What the OP thinks he knows, vs what happened, it becoming increasingly clear, and maintaining strident insistence in side issues only underlines a growing sense of a lack of credibility. The OP is not making himself look any better by nitpicking nuances.

Did something happen, yes. But, point for point in the first post, is each and every action actually borne up by those who saw it? The overall result is that it's beginning to look a lot different.

It's the internet, lots of us had either done it or seen the results, maybe it's time to step back and not get painted into a corner. There likely are more pics and eyewitness perspectives to this minor mishap, the overall weight of what everyone else reports is going to be the final answer, not one view.

As for the need for a safety switch or interlock - anyone who operates the machinery is the responsible party. People make assumptions and mistakes, don't touch one of these things in a manner where it can bite you. Treat it like it will just drive off, and you won't be wrong.