toxicology test

[CdwJava]

It says the primary cause is the car that ran the stop sign.

No, that's NOT what it says. Page 2 of the report will indicate a party number, a code section or other improper driving, and indication of whether or not the offender was cited. The narrative would also reflect this under opinions and conclusions. If you do not have a copy of the collision report, simply say so. If you do not have a copy of the report, then you are operating on second hand information at best so the facts may be slightly different than you have been told.

what we need to do is PROVE he wasn't go 90 mph. Because he wasn't. He had two female passengers with him who said he was never above 65-70. 90 mph ? 90 ? that is INSANELY FAST INSANELY and i know those two girls would have been "FREAKED". there is more detail about how they came up with the 90 mph.

I imagine there is. An analysis of the collision can render a good opinion on the speed at the time of the collision as can the computer inside the car (assuming they were driving a vehicle that was not too old).

And passengers in the car probably wouldn't know the difference between 70 MPH and 90 MPH if they were all just singing, chatting, or having a good time. Odds are they go between 70 and 80 on the freeway all the time. And unless the car shimmies, it can be relatively easy to work up to 90 without noticing unless you are trying to notice or terrified of speed.

But there was NO toxicology done on either of the boys.

Do you have a copy of the autopsy report? I will wager that it will contain that information ... unless the results have not yet come back.

Besides, the impairment of the deceased is really not an issue here. They'd be just as dead if they were sober.

 

[nykizzle]

She's looking for someone to give her the answer she wants, not the answer she doesn't want to hear.

She is still hung up on this whole "right-of-way" thing, thinking that just because her cousin had the right-of-way, that's the end-all-be-all to the whole question of his having any responsibility for the accident and the resulting death of the other driver. As long as she's stuck on that concept, nothing else will make any sense to her - because she's just not hearing anything beyond that.

you are just a rude one aren't you. I crack up at crabs like you who like to insinuate what someone is "hung up on" ... you love what you do don't you.

 

[nykizzle]

@ cdw yes I have a copy of the report... I'm looking at it ... hold on.

 

[nykizzle]

Primary cause 22450 (a) was not cited associated cause 22349 (B) not cited - 70 in a 55mph

 

[nykizzle]

No, that's NOT what it says. Page 2 of the report will indicate a party number, a code section or other improper driving, and indication of whether or not the offender was cited. The narrative would also reflect this under opinions and conclusions. If you do not have a copy of the collision report, simply say so. If you do not have a copy of the report, then you are operating on second hand information at best so the facts may be slightly different than you have been told.


I imagine there is. An analysis of the collision can render a good opinion on the speed at the time of the collision as can the computer inside the car (assuming they were driving a vehicle that was not too old).

And passengers in the car probably wouldn't know the difference between 70 MPH and 90 MPH if they were all just singing, chatting, or having a good time. Odds are they go between 70 and 80 on the freeway all the time. And unless the car shimmies, it can be relatively easy to work up to 90 without noticing unless you are trying to notice or terrified of speed.


Do you have a copy of the autopsy report? I will wager that it will contain that information ... unless the results have not yet come back.

Besides, the impairment of the deceased is really not an issue here. They'd be just as dead if they were sober.

I will "wager" you on that tox report though. Cause my cousins attorney said they did not toxicology.

 

[nykizzle]

Do you not understands what you're up against. We are not litigating a civil suit here where percentage of fault may have made a difference.

Shepherd was driving unlawfully (speeding, unlicensed), dangerously (speeding) and killed someone. That's enough to convict of vehicular manslaughter.
In fact, it's enough to convict of voluntary (regular) manslaughter.

whoa who said anything about driving 'UNLICENSED"? hmmmm

 

[Zigner]

whoa who said anything about driving 'UNLICENSED"? hmmmm

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/selma_enterprise/news/shepherd-to-stand-trail-in-caro-lujan-crash/article_c6b32f56-955f-11e1-8800-001a4bcf887a.html


Quit playing games - this is why we don't like people starting multiple threads on the same topic.

 

[nykizzle]

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/selma_enterprise/news/shepherd-to-stand-trail-in-caro-lujan-crash/article_c6b32f56-955f-11e1-8800-001a4bcf887a.html


Quit playing games - this is why we don't like people starting multiple threads on the same topic.

im sorry but what do you mean about multiple threads? and he was not going that fast. They didn't get the computer out of the cars. He just wasn't going that fast. They Originally cited him at 70 mph because that's what his passengers said ... and that's what he said and none of them had talked. but investigators went and tracked down witnesses a couple months later... and they got some stories of him ALLEGEDLY speeding over 100 mph a over a mile before the accident. Months after the collision ... and in the 2nd preliminary hearing ... 1 of the 3 said it was still a little light outside at 9 pm on a dark country road. the other 2 said it was pitch dark.... and their stories get even worse after that. he was not going that fast. again .... sorry for that.

 

[CdwJava]

Primary cause 22450 (a) was not cited associated cause 22349 (B) not cited - 70 in a 55mph

Okay, that places the cause of the collision on the party that ran the stop sign. That will play to the benefit of the defense. But, understand that manslaughter does not require that the person be the primary CAUSE of the collision. Go back and look on the other thread where I posted the specific elements that must be proven according to the CA state jury instructions.

I will "wager" you on that tox report though. Cause my cousins attorney said they did not toxicology.

Then either the results were not yet in or in the possession of the defense counsel, or this is some brand new sort of incomplete autopsy. I have yet to see an autopsy report that did NOT contain some blood work. But, I suppose a cost-saving measure might have been implemented and a decision made that tox was not necessary under the circumstances. I've never seen that, but I suppose there is a first time for everything.

But, again, it really doesn't matter. They'd be just as dead if they were impaired. All impairment would do would be to change the cause of the collision from VC 22450(a) to VC 23152(a) if there was sufficient drugs or alcohol in the other driver's system.

The matter will go to trial and the defense will be able to try and raise reasonable doubt. The state pretty much has to prove that the actual speed made the difference between life and death and they will also have to prove that the speed was as high as they say. As I mentioned, an adequate reconstruction can determine minimum speed with a great deal of accuracy. All because the initial report estimated 70 does not mean that is the same number they have to stick to at trial. very often the MAIT team (for the CHP) or re-constructionist will not get the reports completed for as long as three months. When those reports come in, the numbers can change.

What gets me is that if the investigating officer said that there would have been "no collision at all" had your cousin been going 55 MPH, then WHY was the PCF applied to the party that ran the stop sign? Those two statements seem to be inconsistent. This is another reason why I think the state will have a hard time making the case. They might have been better off seeking a plea to reckless driving with injury, or even misdemeanor manslaughter.

 

[nykizzle]

Okay, that places the cause of the collision on the party that ran the stop sign. That will play to the benefit of the defense. But, understand that manslaughter does not require that the person be the primary CAUSE of the collision. Go back and look on the other thread where I posted the specific elements that must be proven according to the CA state jury instructions.


Then either the results were not yet in or in the possession of the defense counsel, or this is some brand new sort of incomplete autopsy. I have yet to see an autopsy report that did NOT contain some blood work. But, I suppose a cost-saving measure might have been implemented and a decision made that tox was not necessary under the circumstances. I've never seen that, but I suppose there is a first time for everything.

But, again, it really doesn't matter. They'd be just as dead if they were impaired. All impairment would do would be to change the cause of the collision from VC 22450(a) to VC 23152(a) if there was sufficient drugs or alcohol in the other driver's system.

The matter will go to trial and the defense will be able to try and raise reasonable doubt. The state pretty much has to prove that the actual speed made the difference between life and death and they will also have to prove that the speed was as high as they say. As I mentioned, an adequate reconstruction can determine minimum speed with a great deal of accuracy. All because the initial report estimated 70 does not mean that is the same number they have to stick to at trial. very often the MAIT team (for the CHP) or re-constructionist will not get the reports completed for as long as three months. When those reports come in, the numbers can change.

What gets me is that if the investigating officer said that there would have been "no collision at all" had your cousin been going 55 MPH, then WHY was the PCF applied to the party that ran the stop sign? Those two statements seem to be inconsistent. This is another reason why I think the state will have a hard time making the case. They might have been better off seeking a plea to reckless driving with injury, or even misdemeanor manslaughter.

It took 8 months to get the report back... as a matter of fact. there was NO chp report made AVAILABLE for 8 months... according to our attorney NO AUTOPSY was performed. And the speeds were determined mathematically not by the black boxes ... he had two passengers in his car he was talking with the one in his back seat and the one in the front seat was just gazing out her passenger side window. She remembers everything... she remembers looking over at his speed and it being at 65 ... she remembers them not stopping. it took an hour for help to come... yet the prosecutors come up with witnesses months after the collision that say they saw him speeding over 100 mph over a mile before the accident. but they didn't call 911 didn't go down there because they new it was going to be bad... these witnesses were tracked down.. they never even called in.... In the 2nd preliminary hearing 1 said it was still a little light outside and the other 2 said it was pitch dark. and the twists didn't stop there. I could honestly write a list on all the things the chp officer did on that report that where he contradicts himself. Thats why its so frustrating.

 

[asiny]

The fact that he should not have been behind the wheel of ANY vehicle to begin with is not important?
The same as leaving the scene of an accident?

I don't think the DA needs to prove the speed of the vehicle- he should not have been driving anyway.
The moment he got behind the wheel of the car - which brings another question* - he was already committing a crime. In commission of that crime, he 'contributed' to the death of two people.
I would say he should not be so concerned about the speed as the 'primary contributing factor' to the deaths... his driving was.

*what year was the car he was driving?

she remembers looking over at his speed and it being at 65

The speedometer on many models is on the right of the dashboard and recessed.. how did she see it at 65 so clearly from the passenger seat?

This is a tad confusing.. isn't part of the charges 'leaving the scene of an accident'?

she remembers them not stopping. it took an hour for help to come...

How did she know it took an hour for help? Or am I mis-reading this and you actually meant 'the documents state it took over an hour to come'- not that she knew that?

Why was he driving with no license?

Why did he leave the scene of an accident?

Based on your 'he was not driving faster than 70'- Why was he speeding?

Unless his legal defence can acquire an expert to dismiss the states expert- how do they expect to argue he was not traveling 90?

I could honestly write a list on all the things the chp officer did on that report that where he contradicts himself. Thats why its so frustrating.

What's frustrating is the he should not have been behind the wheel of the car in the first place- had he not, the accident (with him involved) would never have happened.
He was gambling with his life, his passengers lives and anyone else's life the moment he decided to drive the car illegally. The gamble- this time- never played in his favor and contributed to the deaths of two people.
And, furthermore, he fled the scene of an accident- which does not portray him in any good light.

The time for him act legally, and morally, has long gone.. that boat has sailed. You are 'holding onto hope' that because he had the 'right-of-way' and that he was going 'at most' 70- that he not be guilty of what happened. He was and he is.

I, sincerely, hope the trial outcome reflects the severity of his crime- and the (sure to come) civil litigation by the surviving family members. This will not be a period in his life he will ever forget and will pay for everyday for a long time to come.

 

[nykizzle]

The fact that he should not have been behind the wheel of ANY vehicle to begin with is not important?
The same as leaving the scene of an accident?

I don't think the DA needs to prove the speed of the vehicle- he should not have been driving anyway.
The moment he got behind the wheel of the car - which brings another question* - he was already committing a crime. In commission of that crime, he 'contributed' to the death of two people.
I would say he should not be so concerned about the speed as the 'primary contributing factor' to the deaths... his driving was.

*what year was the car he was driving?

The speedometer on many models is on the right of the dashboard and recessed.. how did she see it at 65 so clearly from the passenger seat?

This is a tad confusing.. isn't part of the charges 'leaving the scene of an accident'?

How did she know it took an hour for help? Or am I mis-reading this and you actually meant 'the documents state it took over an hour to come'- not that she knew that?

Why was he driving with no license?

Why did he leave the scene of an accident?

Based on your 'he was not driving faster than 70'- Why was he speeding?

Unless his legal defence can acquire an expert to dismiss the states expert- how do they expect to argue he was not traveling 90?

What's frustrating is the he should not have been behind the wheel of the car in the first place- had he not, the accident (with him involved) would never have happened.
He was gambling with his life, his passengers lives and anyone else's life the moment he decided to drive the car illegally. The gamble- this time- never played in his favor and contributed to the deaths of two people.
And, furthermore, he fled the scene of an accident- which does not portray him in any good light.

The time for him act legally, and morally, has long gone.. that boat has sailed. You are 'holding onto hope' that because he had the 'right-of-way' and that he was going 'at most' 70- that he not be guilty of what happened. He was and he is.

I, sincerely, hope the trial outcome reflects the severity of his crime- and the (sure to come) civil litigation by the surviving family members. This will not be a period in his life he will ever forget and will pay for everyday for a long time to come.

whoa... I could answer each one of those question legit... but you would not hear a thing i say... so you will have to find your answers somewhere else... I'm not going to offer information to someone who wishes evil to my bubble... I will add that the other driver was driving on a provisional license and should not have been on the road with anyone under 20 years old...

 

[nykizzle]

The car is a 1998 ford mustang... go on go ahead check where the speedometer is.... check it out.. see it his passenger was telling a lie... my cousin left the scene but he didn't even know what he hit! he also hit his head badley.. the girls had skull fractures what do you think he had? he didn't even know what he hit. he tried to get help. he was hurt and was in the opposite field where he could not move. His leaving the scene gave the perfect opportunity to keep the blame off them... the shoe fit my cousin and they ran with it. PEOPLE DIDN'T GET THE WHOLE STORY ...Most didn't even know they didn't have their seat belts on and that they didn't even stop. Or that he was driving on a PROVISIONAL LICENSE. and we still don't know if they were intoxicated. STILL YET TO PROVE HE WAS NOT SPEEDING.. THE LICENSE IS NOT WHAT KILLED THOSE BOYS. IT WAS THEIR FAILURE TO STOP AND THEIR CHOICE NOT TO WEAR A SEAT BELT... WHO WAS BEING WRECKLESS.

 

[nykizzle]

and i am telling you it took about an hour for paramedics to get there... his passengers waited for SOMEBODY to come by out there ,, it was in the country you know... they tried flagging down cars that would pass but NOBODY would STOP! THEN 4 teens on bicycles road up and they were able to use their phones... and it was another 20-25 minutes before the police arrived... so no ... not by documentation... but by the passengers themselves... is that sufficient enough? but the witnesses said help was there in 5 minutes! 5 minutes? they saw they saw they heard but they did not help? wow. makes you wonder if there were actually any witnesses at all. being they never called and they were all contacted by somebody else... over two months later... im just saying... please don't go getting crazy on me.. and i do have my facts straight.. i even have copies of the witnesses statements....so

 

[Ladyback1]

and i am telling you it took about an hour for paramedics to get there... his passengers waited for SOMEBODY to come by out there ,, it was in the country you know... they tried flagging down cars that would pass but NOBODY would STOP! THEN 4 teens on bicycles road up and they were able to use their phones... and it was another 20-25 minutes before the police arrived... so no ... not by documentation... but by the passengers themselves... is that sufficient enough? but the witnesses said help was there in 5 minutes! 5 minutes? they saw they saw they heard but they did not help? wow. makes you wonder if there were actually any witnesses at all. being they never called and they were all contacted by somebody else... over two months later... im just saying... please don't go getting crazy on me.. and i do have my facts straight.. i even have copies of the witnesses statements....so

do you have copies of the ambulance trip sheet? The dispatch report/911 call for service? The actual audio of the call into dispatch?

Most states have laws governing response time by emergency responders. And those can't be fudged by EMS or they will lose their licenses (the ambulance company service AND the medics on board)

I do know that when you're waiting, 5 mins can seem like forever.

I understand your desire to protect and support your family member. But, it is not serving you well to lay blame on the dead kids. And it doesn't help to try and find a conspiracy theory.