RedactedNarrative: ON SUNDAY, APRIL 17, 2016, AT APPROXIMATELY 6:08 P.M., INDIANA CONSERVATION OFFICER #1 AND I, INDIANA CONSERVATION OFFICER #2, RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM DNR CENTRAL DISPATCH OF A PWC ACCIDENT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY AT ADAM'S LAKE IN LAGRANGE COUNTY.  INDIANA STATE POLICE TROOPER #1 RESPONDED TO THE ACCIDENT. I COULD HEAR VIA RADIO TRAFFIC THAT TROOPER #1 WAS WAVED DOWN BY A VEHICLE ON HER WAY TO ADAM'S LAKE, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THE FAMILY WHO WAS TRANSPORTING SUBJECT1 TO PARKVIEW LAGRANGE HOSPITAL. SHE REPORTED THAT SHE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE FAMILY TO THE HOSPITAL. ANOTHER TROOPER CONTINUED TO ADAM'S LAKE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH ANY WITNESSES AT THE SCENE. THE TROOPER SPOKE WITH OPERATOR1, WHO WAS THE OTHER OPERATOR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT, AND HAD HIM COMPLETE A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FORM.
  
      WHEN OFFICER #1 AND I ARRIVED AT ADAM'S LAKE, I WAS APPROACHED BY OPERATOR1 WHO INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PWC ACCIDENT. I ASKED OPERATOR1 TO GIVE ME A FULL ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED EARLIER THAT EVENING. HE TOLD ME THAT SUBJECT1 AND HE HAD GONE OUT ON THE LAKE AROUND 5 PM FOR A QUICK RIDE SINCE THE WEATHER WAS NICE, AND IT WAS THE FIRST DAY THEY HAD PUT THEIR JET SKIS ON THE LAKE. HE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE ONLY OUT FOR APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES, AND THAT THE ACCIDENT HAD OCCURRED ON THEIR WAY INTO THE SHORE. ACCORDING TO OPERATOR1, HE WAS HEADING INTO SHORE (SITTING DOWN) AND MADE A SWEEPING TURN TOWARDS HIS DOCK AND BACK OUT INTO THE LAKE, WHILE SUBJECT1 (STANDING UP) HAD CROSSED BEHIND HIM AND MADE A RIGHT HAND LOOPING TURN OUT TOWARDS THE LAKE AND THEN BACK TOWARDS THE SHORE. OPERATOR1 THEN CLAIMED THAT IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT THE LEFT REAR CORNERS OF BOTH PWC'S HAD MADE CONTACT, THOUGH HE CLAIMED IT WAS NOT A HARD HIT BY ANY MEANS. OPERATOR1 SAID THAT AFTER THEY MADE CONTACT HE CIRCLED BACK AROUND AND NOTICED SUBJECT1 WAS IN THE WATER. HE ASKED IF SUBJECT1 WAS ALRIGHT TO WHICH SUBJECT1 RESPONDED THAT HIS CHEST AND SHOULDER WAS HURTING. OPERATOR1 THEN SAID HE HELPED SUBJECT1 ONTO THE BACK OF HIS PWC AND TOOK HIM AND CARRIED HIM INTO SHORE.
  
      OPERATOR1 AFFIRMED THAT THEY WERE BOTH WEARING PFD'S AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, AND THAT HE HAD BEEN OPERATING PWC'S FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAD TAKEN A BOATING COURSE APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS PRIOR.  OPERATOR1 WAS COOPERATIVE THE ENTIRE TIME I WAS SPEAKING WITH HIM, AND FREELY PROVIDED REGISTRATION, DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND SHOWED ME HIS PWC ALL WITHOUT ME HAVING TO ASK. OPERATOR1 SHOWED REMORSE IN HIS STATEMENTS, AND WAS VISIBLY SHAKEN IN HIS BODY LANGUAGE (NERVOUSNESS WAS READILY APPARENT, AS WAS THE FACT THAT HE KEPT INQUIRING ON THE STATUS OF SUBJECT1). 
  
      AFTER SPEAKING WITH OPERATOR1, OFFICER #1 AND I LOOKED OVER SUBJECT1'S PWC FOR ANY DAMAGE. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE ON THE PWC. WE DID NOTE THAT THE PWC WAS NOT REGISTERED, AND THE HIN CAME BACK NOT ON FILE. 
  
     WHILE WE WERE PREPARING TO LEAVE THE RESIDENCE, SUBJECT1'S FAMILY ARRIVED. I SPOKE WITH SUBJECT1'S MOTHER WHO CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD WITNESSED THE ACCIDENT, AND SHOWED ME WHERE SHE WAS SITTING. SHE MENTIONED THAT WHILE WATCHING SUBJECT1 AND OPERATOR1, SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HIT EACH OTHER. SHE TOLD ME THAT SUBJECT1 HAD BEEN COMING INTO SHORE WHEN OPERATOR1 COLLIDED WITH HIM, THROWING SUBJECT1 OFF THE JET SKI AND INTO THE WATER. SUBJECT1'S MOTHER THEN CLAIMED THAT OPERATOR1 RAN OVER SUBJECT1 WHILE HE WAS IN THE WATER, THUS CAUSING THE INJURIES. SUBJECT1'S MOTHER DID VERIFY THAT BOTH INDIVIDUALS WERE WEARING A LIFE JACKET, AND SUBJECT1 HAD BEEN OPERATING JET SKIS FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 YEARS.  SUBJECT1'S MOTHER TOLD ME THAT SUBJECT1 WAS CURRENTLY BEING TRANSPORTED TO PARKVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DUE TO A PUNCTURED LUNG.
  
     OFFICER #1 AND I LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND PROCEEDED TO PARKVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER IN FORT WAYNE. I ARRIVED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE FAMILY, AND SPOKE WITH SUBJECT1 WHILE HIS FAMILY WAS PRESENT. SUBJECT1 CLAIMED THAT HE WAS HEADED TOWARDS THE SHORE AT APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH AND OPERATOR1 DROVE A CIRCLE AROUND HIM GOING 30-35 MPH, AND ON THE SECOND LAP AROUND COLLIDED WITH HIM. HE SAID THAT HE WAS SEATED ON THE JET SKI AND OPERATOR1'S PWC CAME UP OVER THE TOP OF HIS, KNOCKING HIM OFF AND INTO THE WATER. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SUBJECT1'S MOTHER WAS CONSTANTLY CORRECTING SUBJECT1'S RECOUNTING OF EVENTS. SUBJECT1 REAFFIRMED THAT BOTH INDIVIDUALS WERE WEARING LIFE JACKETS, AND THAT HE HAD BEEN OPERATING PWC'S FOR 4-5 YEARS. SUBJECT1 ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER RECEIVED ANY FORMAL INSTRUCTION ON THE OPERATION OF PWC'S. I INFORMED SUBJECT1 THAT I WOULD TYPICALLY ISSUE A CITATION FOR FAILURE TO REGISTER THE PWC, HOWEVER DUE TO HIS BAD LUCK OF BEING INJURED I WAS GOING TO CUT HIM A BREAK AND SEND HIM A WARNING IN THE MAIL. 
  
      SINCE THE THREE STORIES WERE ALL DIFFERENT, I DECIDED TO REASSESS THE DAMAGE TO THE PWC'S THE NEXT MORNING WITH OFFICER PRICE. WE WENT TO THE RESIDENCE AND LOOKED OVER OPERATOR1'S PWC FOR DAMAGE. WE FOUND A COUPLE OF SCRAPES ON THE VERY BOTTOM AT THE LEFT REAR CORNER (PICTURED).  WE THEN LOOKED AT SUBJECT1'S PWC AND LOCATED A FRESH SCRATCH TO THE CLEAR COAT AND SOME FRESH RUB MARKS, BOTH ON THE RIGHT REAR CORNER (PICTURED).
  
      GIVEN THE DOCUMENTED DAMAGE, I DECIDED TO RE-INTERVIEW SUBJECT1 AT THE HOSPITAL. HE RESTATED THE SAME STORY HE HAD TOLD ME THE NIGHT BEFORE. WHEN I INFORMED HIM THAT THE DAMAGE WAS CONFLICTING WITH HIS STORY, HE CHANGED HIS STORY AND SAID THAT OPERATOR1 WAS NOT DOING CIRCLES AROUND HIM, BUT WAS COMING TOWARDS HIM AND TURNED AT THE LAST MINUTE AS IF HE WAS TRYING TO SPRAY HIM. HE ALSO REAFFIRMED THAT HE WAS SEATED ON THE JET SKI. HIS MOTHER STARTED TO GIVE ANOTHER STORY ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BUT WHEN QUESTIONED IF SHE PHYSICALLY SAW THE CRASH TAKE PLACE SHE CHANGED HER STORY AND ADMITTED SHE HAD NOT. SHE DID CLAIM SHE HEARD THE ACCIDENT THOUGH.
  
      SINCE I HAD RECEIVED ANOTHER STORY FROM SUBJECT1 THAN WHAT I WAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD, I LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DAMAGE TO THE PWC'S AND WEIGHED THE PROBABILITY OF THE STORIES. ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED OPERATOR1'S ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE A FEW UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT I HAD LEFT FOR HIM.
  
      I MET WITH OPERATOR1 AT HIS RESIDENCE, AND ONCE AGAIN ASKED HIM TO RECOUNT THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE THE DAY BEFORE. HE GAVE ME THE SAME STORY BUT WENT INTO MORE DETAIL THIS TIME, STATING THAT SUBJECT1 WAS STANDING ON THE BACK OF HIS JET SKI IN POPULAR FASHION TO JUMP WAKES. HE STATED THAT SUBJECT1 HAD A SMALLER PWC WHICH WAS EASIER TO JUMP ON, AND HIS WAS LARGER WHICH MADE DECENT WAKES BEHIND IT. AS THEY WERE COMING ACROSS THE LAKE SUBJECT1 WAS JUMPING WAKES BEHIND HIM. AS THE APPROACHED THE SHORE OPERATOR1 TURNED BACK TOWARDS THE LAKE AS HE HAD CLAIMED THE NIGHT BEFORE. WHILE MAKING THE TURN HE WAS COMING VERY CLOSE TO SUBJECT1, SO HE TURNED AND THROTTLED TO GET OUT OF THE WAY FASTER. WHEN HE DID THIS THE PWC ROLLED TO THE SIDE, AND OPERATOR1'S PWC HIT SUBJECT1 IN THE UPPER SIDE OF HIS BODY, AND SCRAPED ACROSS HIS ARM AND BACK. SINCE SUBJECT1 WAS STANDING UP ON HIS PWC, THE REAR WOULD SIT LOWER IN THE WATER THUS MAKING THE INJURY POSSIBLE. 
  
      AFTER HEARING STORIES FROM BOTH INDIVIDUALS, I HAVE DECIDED THAT OPERATOR1'S STORY IS THE MOST ACCURATE TELLING OF EVENTS, SINCE IT WAS CORROBORATED BY THE EVIDENCE AND DID NOT CHANGE.