@necrodethmortem – So said Sherlock Holmes (in italics):
“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident.”
The reason why I’m quoting Arthur Conan Doyle here is that your entire argument is basically the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. You’re saying that nothing happening is proof of something having happened. There is no proof that Maldonado deliberately hit Perez, and the stewards did not penalise Maldonado for deliberately hitting Perez, so therefore, Maldonado must have deliberately hit Perez. Do you see how this sentence defies all logic?
Until you can provide conclusive proof that Maldonado intentionally crashed into Perez, you must accept that he did not and that the incident was nothing more than an avoidable accident. To suggest otherwise is only going to dig you further into a hole you cannot get out of.