Thanks guys. I’ll read 63.5 and F.5. 
In the mean time. I agree with it being rule 11. Boats can change heal for numerous reasons. For instance, if there was a crew member to leeward (to use a mounted VHF, check jib trim, grab a water bottle or checking blind spot for crossing boats) when windward sail over the top or drop down too close, then the crew came back to windward, perhaps in lighter wind than OP situation, causing the boat to stand up straighter, it would be clear rule 11. The prevailing conditions meaning W has a heavy heal on is only muddying the water. They weren’t far enough to windward to avoid colliding. Weather hulls or rigs, no distinction is made in the rules to my knowledge other than gear in proper position, which the mast was - can’t not be unless broken I suppose. I can’t accept there was a hull length of separation between them. They must have been much closer according to math, which I find more reliable evidence than W’s testimony.
If L dropped the main sheet intentionally, say to reef the main, causing the boat to stand upright, and the rigs hit, would we be blaming L or saying W was too close?

Is any additional proof required besides the RO testimony? 

Jim Champ Reply to: 22039 - John Quirk: furthermore, in CASE 50, in the first sentence, it actually uses the term "genuine and reasonable apprehension" (this of course a standard used by courts with applications for an arrest in connection with non-bailable offences), and in the second sentence 'reasonable doubt' (again, a well-tested legal / court term). Quite some complexity for a competitor and PC to become acquainted with :).

And I appreciate it.

I never called you a blockhead.