On Mar 18, 12:27*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:59 am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:
"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.
Harry K
How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.
So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.
Aye Karumba. * Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. * *But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. * This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.
The CHP is a fairly respected organization, who has absolutely no
motive to lie about what happened. In fact, it is their job to make
sure the facts are reported. Their account, which they are standing
by, includes input from eyewitnesses.
So far, nobody has anything factual to refute the official CHP report.
Nothing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No one is suggesting they lied about what happened. * * However, any
reasonable interpretation of what they reported, including the 911
call itself, *would lead to the conclusiong that it's 99% certain this
guy is a liar. * *
That borders on insane.
How about what Forbes pointed out? * The guy claimed
on the 911 call at one point he wouldn't shift to neutral because he
didn't want to take his hands off the steering wheel. * Yet, he also
claimed he reached down, grabbed hold of the gas pedal, and couldn't
bring it back up while driving along. * *
So? He was panicked. Hardly surprising in his situation.
Uh huh. So panicked that he couldn't just turn the car off or shift
to neutral as he was repeatedly instructed to do by the 911
operator. But not panicked so that he could stand on his head and
try to pull up the accelerator. I'd say that is very surprising,
unless you're a liar.
Forbes tried it with an
average size person and found that they could barely touch and
UNPRESSED pedal with their finger tips and could not get at a
depressed pedal at all. *
Now THERE'S incontrovertable proof!
Then Sikes changed his story to he was
afraid to put it into neutral because he thought the car might
"flip". *He was also afraid to just turn the car off for 20+ miles.
Yet finally the car miraculously slows down to 50 *and stops when the
officer is driving next to him and tells him to put on the brakes and
turn it off. *The analysis of the brake pads showed no indication that
they had been used for hard braking. * The onboard computer showed the
accelerator and brakes had been applied hundreds of times.
You believe this crap?
The brake pads were down to metal, and there was tons of evidence of
recent hard braking.
Not according to the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6912748.html
"The brake wear was not consistent with the brakes being applied at
full force for a long period, the Wall Street Journal reported
Saturday, citing three people familiar with the probe, whom it did not
name. The newspaper said the brakes may have been applied
intermittently."
Sure you can burn up a set of brake pads driving 94mph with partial
braking and your foot on the accelerator at the same time.
As for the police, while not lying, if they were doing their job, they
would have asked him to show them how he could have reached the gas
pedal while driving. *
And you know for a fact that they didn't?
According to all the news reports they just took the skunk at his
word. I do know that in my own cars, reaching down to pull up an
accelerator would be extremely difficult if not impossible while
driving down the freeway at 94mph.
And detained him for some serious questioning.
And asked him to take a lie detector test. * They did none of that yet
if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he
lawyer up?
Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant?
Apparently you don't understand the difference between police
questioning someone and asking if the will submit to a lie detector
test and arrest. They are distinctly different events. People are
questioned and asked if they will take a lie detector test all the
time without being under arrest.
I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can.
Then you must not watch the news. I see lie detectors used
frequently during investigations. They aren't admissable in court,
but that is a different issue.
There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.- Hide quoted text -
I'd say there is a good deal of evidence that he committed a number of
crimes. The probablilities of the brakes not working, refusing to put
the car in neutral, refusing to turn the car off, then doing exactly
that after 20 miles when the cruiser arrives is 1 in a billion.. I
suppose if you were on the OJ jury, you'd have let him off the hook
too.