Ok Casacrow, so given that you have now proclaimed yourself a self appointed investigator... Quote from your post # 267 in this thread "considering my experience with legal investigations in Ontario."
Please enlighten us as to WHAT investigations you have personally done and what "organization" employs you. This way we can look at these investigations and "pick them apart without the benefit of approx 90% of the evidence you "may" have had available to you, just as you have done with the SIU investigation. I am also sure any defence or other attorneys would be interested in seeing how you conduct an investigation. (you can PM me this info rather than post it on the forum). You approached this "investigation" with a predetermined outcome, (that the cop IS guilty and you are going to stop at nothing to prove your point, you also stated that your mind will not be changed from this position).
Many of us civilians have had involved with legal investigations in Ontario. Myself, I have unfortunately been in the wrong place at the wrong time and witnessed some horrible events. I have provided evidence in several investigations, including video evidence. I have also been on the receiving end of a criminal investigation- much like the officer. None of this really matters though, I was just simply asking that you refer to me as "Internet Ident". Call me whatever you like though, you are free to do so.
I did not approach this matter with the belief that the officer was at fault. I heard the news and read the thread. I was actually under the impression that the real likelyhood was that the rider made a less than intelligent manouver avoiding an officer during persuit. I decided I would attend the crash site and see if I could better understand what had happened. Once I spent some time at the site, and viewed the photos in media releases, I then realized I was wrong in my hypothesis. After and only after viewing the site for myself did I begin posting in this thread.
I offered you a VIABLE alternative... Go to a JP and lay a private complaint against the officer charging him with the appropriate charges, using the "evidence" you have gathered. You won't because you KNOW that you would be laughed right out of the building. For a "supposed" investigator to draw ANY conclusion without the benefit of ALL the evidence is VERY VERY unprofessional, not to mention dangerous.
Unfortunately all evidence is not available. We do not have access to to the notes taken, the report from the SIU. I suppose getting laughed out of the building would be a possibility, but I've never seen a JP do that, not to my face anyways.
Now you asked if I still felt my statements and the statements of others, (beginning on page 14 of this thread), did you not even notice MOST of those statements were made within days of the collision? That we had NO information supplied by an outside INVESTIGATIVE agency. I also posted several times that we should wait until the investigation was completed. Of course "some" of us don't have the ability to determine EXACTLY what happened without at least looking at the evidence, as you do...
You clearly and firmly stated that the collision was a head on collision. This is what the media called it, and you confirmed that you clearly believed this prior to any SIU release. As a former police officer I would have expected you to not base your beliefs on a media news release. Now you are just agreeing with the latest release that was provided from the SIU. This is where I have developed my line of thinking when I refer to you as being spoon fed. You at some point made refernce to me being a bouncy rubber ball or similar. I have stayed pretty darn consistient in my views, you however, have not.
No you are not an Internet IDENT, You are TRYING to be an internet CSI Crime Scene Investigator. IF you were a true "investigator" you would know that the task of an "IDENT" person is simply to bag and tag, evidence, (including fingerprints, photos, measurements etc, at the scene. They don't "do" the actual investigation... This shows you COMPLETE lack of knowledge and expertise in these matters and actual POLICE procedure and protocols.
I do see that you are putting a lot of effort forward in attempting to discredit me. You are correct sir, I am just a civilian with no expertise in crash scene reconstruction. I am however, a concerned citizen that physically attended the scene and have been providing my obersvations on the internet. Can I also assume that you may also believe that the SIU is some sort of an "Internet Investigation team" as they also published there finding on the internet? Have you attended the scene.....or are you simply basing your thoughts on what you read on the internet?
Now, Let's for just ONE SECOND assume your "measurements", (made with a car odometer as opposed to the accident reconstruction team who used "calibrated and certified" measuring devices), were accurate. You ask why an officer didn't see a SINGLE headlight traveling at him at a rate of speed TWICE the legal limit. Now turn the tables for a second and explain to us mere mortals, HOW did Clayton not see a full sized sedan with TWO headlights, (which at night would have cast light in the general area of the cruiser), as well as TWO tail lights? Again it is LOGICAL to assume one riding a motorcycle, (remember his friend DVSbullet initially stated he was a safe responsible rider who didn't ride beyond his capabilities), so he should have seen this vehicle and slowed.
Yes, I agree that if the officer was making a legal turning manouver with a clear view of the roadway that Clay would also have been able to see the cruiser. A person riding directly into the side of a vehicle blocking the road would absolutely exhibit poor choices. SIU released that they believe Clayton made an attempt to avoid collision. They made no reference to the officer attempting to avoid collision, which if the view was not obstructed for either party, you would expect a reasonable person to do.
Now if the turning manouver placed the officer's car behind the barrier(highly likely as a UTurn could not be made in the space allowed), Clay may have seen the car over the barrier before it entered the roadway and didn't expect it pull out. He may have not also seen the car had it pulled out from the barier until it was too late for him to stop.
Clay's direction of travel was predictable to the officer, had he seen him. The officer's direction of travel would have been less predictable to Clay as the officer was travelling perpendicular to the normal flow of traffic.
Yes my method of measurement was less than precise and my odometer has not been certified by Measurement Canada. I welcome you the opportunity to make your own measurements and provide them here.
Now you said that the line of sight gave Clayton 550 meters and 12 seconds to see the cruiser. (even at 150 km/h). So this rider who according to those who knew him and was a "safe a responsible rider who didn't ride beyond his abilities", surely he should have been able to bring a SS bike to a safe and controlled stop WELL within those time and distance constraints. You say the 825 meters, line of sight to the West meant the officer "should have seen the bike behind him" Well this would also mean that Clayton should have seen the much larger vehicle with TWO taillights in that same distance.
I do not agree with DVS that Clayton didn't ride beyond his abilities.Yes I believe that Clayton would have been able to bring his motorcycle to a stop considering the sightline, that is assuming the the officer initiated his turning manouver before seeing the motorcycle( approx 12 seconds), and that the turning manouver did not involve leaving the usable portion of the roadway and travelling behind the concrete barrier. Yes on the approach to the hill Clay would have seen the officer in front of him. I would not expect him to assume that the car was going to later be posistioned perpendicular to the flow of traffic blocking the roadway.
However, I thank you for the measurements as it only strengthens the argument AGAINST a charge of illegal U turn as the HTA section states the driver must have 150m of vision you clearly have demonstrated that the officer had a full 550 meters therefore his u turn was NOT illegal as per the current legislation, (which you may disagree with, BUT until it is re written it stands).
I am not too sure how you can discredit my measurements, then later use them to support your arguement? I once said that the UTurn illegal, and you strongly opposed. Where did the SIU ever say he was making a LEGAL UTurn?
So for those of us who aren't nearly as experienced investigators as you, (BTW I have investigated approx 2500 collisions including SEVERAL fatalities, involving all types of vehicles from bicycles all the way to fully loaded rigs), how it is that the officer "should" have made all the above observations yet Clayton made NONE of them? So your point is that the officer must be super human in that he can see all and that the rider had the ability, (his viewing position "should" have been better as his view was straight ahead as opposed to the officers being via rear view mirrors), to see NONE of this? Your conclusion my friend is terribly flawed.
I appreciate your service to whatever region you have worked in. It sounds that you have spent many years in service and I appreciate that. This is also the reason why I will never quickly dismiss your obervations. Your service as a police officer encourages me to spend much more time reading your posts and trying to completely understand them. My point is definately not that the officer must be super human, I actually would believe that his actions were subhuman considering the events as I see them.
If as your above statement indicates, "we would all shoot for safety" then rather than "try" to avoid a collision by swerving around a vehicle, (which according to you, was blocking the entire available road surface), and accounting for YOUR figures that the rider had 550 meters and 12 seconds to stop would THAT have not been the "safe" thing to do???
Yes. If the officer's car was in view for the full 12 seconds, I would expect Clay to come to a stop. My expectations of Clay do not change my expectations of the officer, I would expect the officer to not be blocking a roadway for such an extended period of time, to not have reeneterd the roadway from behind a barrier, and to act as a resonable person would and attemp to avoid collision. If he sat in the path of an oncoming speeding vehicle for 12 seconds, he is was not reasonable. Had he appeared in fron of Clay from behind the barrier, his actions were also not reasonable.
Several times in this thread you have condemned the SIU investigators asking how they could have "known the officers intent" as well as other findings. Then YOU "claim" to know what Clayton's intent was, (that he was on the wrong side of the road to avoid a collision). Nicely done, again, you have CLEARLY demonstrated that we should ALL be glad your not sent to investigate ANY collision anyone is involved in.
Ok. Perhaps he was on the wrong side of the road because he felt like riding there. The officer blocked both lanes. SIU did conclude that Clay attempted to avoid collision, am I wrong to assume that being in the westbound lane was also part of his atempt?
Several pages ago you asked me to provide "my motive", (which i did, saying that it was to disprove many inaccuracies and that many members had initially, (without benefit of an investigation), made inaccurate and inflammatory posts towards the guilt of the officer.
So please enlighten us as to YOUR motives, in a attempt to dispute the findings of EXPERTS with the benefit of ALL the evidence?
I already have.
