ACT Policing seeking witnesses to learner driver crash

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

Really? From what I read there was a bit, what did you read?

Stop reading fairy tales then.

Forensic evidence linking him to the murder weapon? Nope.
Forensic evidence placing him at the crime scene? Nope.

Nada.

They employed a psychologist to (completely unethically, but that’s psychology for you) tell them the best way to make Eastman act bonkers for the jury and they implemented those recommendations successfully.

djk said :

“%” doesn’t mean what you think it does. And even if it did, I am struggling to picture what a “360% angle” is. Does it mean he went straight??

Doing a 360 would mean you did a complete spin and kept going in the same direction. No mean feat.

Also I blame the school system for this post.

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Someone who knows jack s*** about the Eastman trial thinks there is a big conspiracy theory (despite no evidence). Colour me surprised. The moon landing was fake, US government blew up the WTC, Oscar the grouch shot JFK. Please keep reinforcing my view that conspiracy theorists are all cretinous nutbags.

I will not have you try to pin JFK’s death on Oscar the Grouch. He wasn’t even born until 10/11/69 according to wiki.

You grubby little man…

To follow up on my other comment, the other car seen speeding down the road was dark blue, these two cars may possibly have some involvement in the incident, seems highly likely that they do, considering the timing, at the very least they would have seen what happened.

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

Really? From what I read there was a bit, what did you read?

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Someone who knows jack s*** about the Eastman trial thinks there is a big conspiracy theory (despite no evidence). Colour me surprised. The moon landing was fake, US government blew up the WTC, Oscar the grouch shot JFK. Please keep reinforcing my view that conspiracy theorists are all cretinous nutbags.

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

Pork Hunt said :

He should be charged with trying to pervert the course of justice by having a maroon commodore instead of white.

+1

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

No teeth left, perhaps? Paralysed? Dribbling and Moaning? Etc…

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.