The State Strikes Back – This Time With Faulty Reasoning
The trial of Randall Ashauer is drawing to an end. On 3 March, 2008, closing arguments will be made followed by jury deliberations.
On Friday, 29 February, 2008, the defense presented expert witnesses to demonstrate that the State’s claims of where the accident occurred were faulty. The State has claimed that the two victims were walking on the shoulder of the highway when struck by Ashauer.
The prosecution rebutted with Trooper Jason Schwarz. Schwarz was the State Trooper who prepared the accident report implicating Ashauer. He claimed there were tire tracks that showed that Ashauer left the roadway before hitting the victims. Unfortunately for the State, the documented tire tracks did not match the Ashauer vehicle and were not allowed as evidence.
Schwarz claimed that gouges he found were left by the body of Tiffany Pohl when she struck the gravel. I’m not sure how he can be so certain. If there were fragments of clothing that could be matched to Pohl, the statement might be correct. Otherwise, it is wishful thinking.
Trooper Schwarz also testified that an earlier driver had swerved over the centerline to avoid the two women who were then walking on the pavement. Schwartz claimed this proved that any driver at any time would have avoided the accident.
That is a false conclusion. Given that different times of day and different traffic patterns are not identical, the claim of identical responses by all sober drivers is bad reasoning and contrary to the human condition. We are not equally gifted in our response to emergencies. Nor are we equally gifted at all moments of day. Other witnesses had already testified that they feared the two victims had placed themselves in danger.
The idea that investigators will tailor testimony to a preconceived conclusion should be scary to citizens. Unfortunately, the bulk of citizens cannot comprehend that these methods will apply to themselves also.
There is a need for better training of law enforcement investigators. An investigation should gather evidence in an unbiased fashion and then draw conclusions. The way it works now is to define a desired conclusion and then claim evidence supports that conclusion.
We don’t need to throw more people into our decadent prison system. We need more competent investigators. And, we need honest and forthright prosecutors.
The outcome of this accident would be no different if a sober driver struck the women. The results are bad for all concerned. But, if the pedestrians had an ownership in their fate, then that needs to part of the fact finding process. Otherwise, the legal process is a sham.
by Brian McCorkle
in category Criminal Justice,Rants
