5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[burn_this_city]

I saw a head on collision on highway 1 between rogers pass and revelstoke. Everyone who witnessed it was more concerned that everyone was ok than anything else. No one was trying to determine guilt or what happened until it was well after the accident. People acting sketchy in situations like that have something to hide. The fact he tried to conceal the vodka bottle at all makes it hard to believe he wasnt drunk.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Glass bottle, plastic bottle, doesn't matter. I buy big water bottles all the time and they're just completely different than plastic vodka bottles. Off the top of my head I can think of two kinds of vodka that come in plastic bottles and neither one is remotely similar to a plastic water bottle.

I know we're just arguing a small detail, but I just don't like idiotic lies. Sure, I've never been on the delivering end of an accident like that, so I don't know how I'd react, but I can tell you that I no matter how shocked I was, I could still, even if I screwed up which bottle I grabbed, tell the difference between the taste of vodka and the taste of water. It's just so pathetic.

Is it possible he took a drink, realized it was vodka and drank no more? Now he could potentially smell of booze and have a half empty vodka bottle in his hands. Maybe he or someone else drank it down that far previously. Could have been stone cold sober but for that swig. We don't know what his BAC was. Could have registered a .00 for all we know.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Is it possible he took a drink, realized it was vodka and drank no more? Now he could potentially smell of booze and have a half empty vodka bottle in his hands. Maybe he or someone else drank it down that far previously. Could have been stone cold sober but for that swig. We don't know what his BAC was. Could have registered a .00 for all we know.

Yep. You could be right about that. Which brings us back to why he refused the BAC...

[loob job]

I smoke a car the last thing i am doing is reaching around for a bottle of anything, water or not.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by loob job

I smoke a car the last thing i am doing is reaching around for a bottle of anything, water or not.

Exactly, since when is quenching my thirst the first priority after bulldozing over a family sedan.

[4X4]

I've got a question for the lawyers: are lawyers allowed to lie? Are they allowed to concoct a possible alternative to the facts and present it? I guess I always assumed that they are allowed to do this.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yep. You could be right about that. Which brings us back to why he refused the BAC...

Maybe he was just following his lawyer's advice: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=300

[pylon]

They will never admit it, but yes they do.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by pylon

They will never admit it, but yes they do.

So, like, a guy could tell his lawyer that he murdered someone, pre-meditated, and the laywer could still come up with some kind of alternative story that makes his client innocent? Like, Johnnie Cochrane? Like, I know you did it, but I'm gonna lie you out of it?
I've never really thought about that. That's... Well... Disturbing. But I guess that's the way it has to be. Huh.

[burn_this_city]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Cement+...007/story.html

Apparently he was watching a pressure gauge instead of the road. My truck is full of gauges, I dont really have a problem glancing down for a split second to check it before I look back at the road. His story is such hogwash..

[Peanut]

I said "Thanks" to everyone who already said it, but it's worth saying again. I just CANNOT imagine that my very first reaction after a horrific car crash is going to be looking around on the floor of my vehicle for a water bottle to take a drink. Thankfully I've never been in a bad crash so yeah, I'm an "arm-chair internet analyzer" or whatever. But seriously. You just killed 5 people and your first reaction is to TAKE A GODDAMN DRINK OF WATER?!?!

This case is beyond repulsive and totally frustrating.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Cement+...007/story.html

Apparently he was watching a pressure gauge instead of the road. My truck is full of gauges, I dont really have a problem glancing down for a split second to check it before I look back at the road. His story is such hogwash..

Sure, ever done it hammered though?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I've got a question for the lawyers: are lawyers allowed to lie? Are they allowed to concoct a possible alternative to the facts and present it? I guess I always assumed that they are allowed to do this.

You can argue in the alternative, and you can argue interpretations, but you cannot argue something that cannot be supported by admissible evidence. It's not only a violation of legal ethics a statement not supported would be outside the rules of evidence and be prohibited on those grounds.

So, a possible alternative? Yes. An unsupported lie? No.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by pylon

They will never admit it, but yes they do.

Originally Posted by 4X4

I've got a question for the lawyers: are lawyers allowed to lie? Are they allowed to concoct a possible alternative to the facts and present it? I guess I always assumed that they are allowed to do this.

http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/files/Code.pdf

From Chapter 10:

14. A lawyer must not mislead the court nor assist a client or witness to do so.

17. (a) A lawyer's representations to the court concerning the facts of a case must be limited
representations supported by the evidence.
(b) A lawyer's representations to the court concerning the law must be supported by judicial decision or other legal authority unless the lawyer informs the court that there is no such support.

24. A lawyer must not counsel a witness to give evidence that is untruthful or misleading.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So, like, a guy could tell his lawyer that he murdered someone, pre-meditated, and the laywer could still come up with some kind of alternative story that makes his client innocent? Like, Johnnie Cochrane? Like, I know you did it, but I'm gonna lie you out of it?
I've never really thought about that. That's... Well... Disturbing. But I guess that's the way it has to be. Huh.

The obligation is on the prosecution to prove the charge, if there is no evidence presented to show that it was a pre-meditated murder the lawyer is under no obligation to reveal the statement made to him. In fact, the statement is completely privileged and cannot be compelled even by court order.

Even if you think about Cochrane at the OJ trial, he didn't really argue that OJ was at the golf course that night, he instead pointed out that some of the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the charge.

There's a pretty hazy middle ground with this, so it's hard to state a firm rule.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I said "Thanks" to everyone who already said it, but it's worth saying again. I just CANNOT imagine that my very first reaction after a horrific car crash is going to be looking around on the floor of my vehicle for a water bottle to take a drink. Thankfully I've never been in a bad crash so yeah, I'm an "arm-chair internet analyzer" or whatever. But seriously. You just killed 5 people and your first reaction is to TAKE A GODDAMN DRINK OF WATER?!?!

This case is beyond repulsive and totally frustrating.

well i have been in a fatality accident before and i can tell you drinking something or eating something was the farthest thing from my mind. I was ejected from the car and as soon as i stopped moving from the ejection i was trying to find my 1st wife and make sure she was ok ( which she was not) and as i was tending to my wife i was trying to find the lady who hit us to make sure she was ok...... there was nothing on my mind other than making sure everyone was ok...... i dont see how i could have drank something , then take the time to realize what i drank and how to conceal the fact that i drank it in the time period.......

[SeeGeeWhy]

Why do people have the right to refuse breathalyzer tests? And are there automatic charges filed if you do refuse?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Is it possible he took a drink, realized it was vodka and drank no more? Now he could potentially smell of booze and have a half empty vodka bottle in his hands. Maybe he or someone else drank it down that far previously. Could have been stone cold sober but for that swig. We don't know what his BAC was. Could have registered a .00 for all we know.

So the real question then is why does a recovering alcoholic have a previously opened bottle of vodka in the cab of his vehicle? Wouldn't that also be illegal? Not to mention stupid? Because I'm quite certain that if I went to take a drink out of my water bottle, and just picked up a vodka bottle instead, when I opened it, if it wasn't already open, I would look at it when I felt the seal crack.

Maybe I don't have the facts straight? Was it a half empty bottle of vodka sitting in his cab? Do you think it's wise as a recovering alcoholic to have one within reach while you're driving?

It's just so much BS, I do hope the cross examiner tore a hole through his testimony.

[Azure]

ohhh....just read the above.

[CaptainCrunch]

Open container is just a fine right now isn't it.

From my understanding of this case, they weren't even focusing on the drunk driving aspect, I think they were focusing on undo care and consideration factors causing 5 deaths, and from the sounds of it, they didn't even need to go into the possible intoxication aspect of this. The obstruction of justice is a seperate charge, and probably minor.