This is Nick's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Nick's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Depending on the results of the internal investigation, Mr. Perdock could be facing some big trouble in the near future.
Mark, I am not sure that Mr. Perdock asked for any special treatment. I am sure that he is lying about some of the events of that night. It is always a bad sign when multiple witnesses testify against something you have said. It is sad that the DA did such a poor job really investigating this case. It should have never gone this far. I have faith that the jury will hand down a very impartial verdict. If not I am also sure that you will see some appeals given the very "questionable" nature of this trial. It will be very interesting to see the results of the internal investigation, and the information that would put into question the credibility of Mr. Perdock. If that report does find something, I would imagine some sort of action will be taken against Mr. Perdock. I do believe that he should be held accountable for his actions that night, but it is rare for a DA to lose one case, then take up another as a result of that case. If that makes any sense. It seems to me that much of Mr. Perdock's future will rest on the findings of the internal investigation. I would have trouble speculating on any potential charges until all information is released. Mud slinging is never the answer to anything. My background is in Political Science, mostly IR and law. As you can imagine I have a good bit of expertise. I do support Mr. Dinius and believe that he had no responsibility in the death of Lynn Thornton. With that being said I have offered a very balanced view of the trial while respecting everyone's opinion. I was the one who told you to take some law classes. I was angered by your statements about this trial, the defense, and the reporting. I apologize for my comments. I hope that my comments have shed some light on the questionable nature of the DA's case, the investigation by the LCSO and the trial in general.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Perdock Finally Takes Stand at I-Team
To make a felony BUI charge stick the prosecution must prove that Mr. Dinius’ actions directly resulted in the accident and the death of Lynn Thornton. The prosecution has indicated that it was the “Beats Workin’ II’s” lack of running lights that was the cause of the accident. That is why so much time has been spent on that issue. If the prosecution can’t prove beyond a reasonable that the lights were off, the felony BUI resulting in death charge holds little or no water. Also in question is who is actually considered “in charge” of the boat. This case would be very simple if the vessel was a power boat. As indicated during the trail, the man at the tiller of the sail boat is not necessarily considered to be in charge of the boat. I believe (don’t quote me on this) that the defense’s expert witness indicated that the owner of the boat is considered to be in charge. You are incorrect in assuming that the running lights have no relevance to the felony BUI charge. Your example of running into a car is a bit off. First off the laws of the road differ from laws that apply to being on the water. As I stated before it is the responsibility of the motor driven overtaking boat to avoid any and all objects that may be in the way. In basic terms the law says that the motorized boat must avoid the sailed vessel at all times. That being said, by law, Mr. Perdock had the obligation to avoid the sailed vessel. It is also important to point out that Mr. Perdock, being in charge of the motorized vessel, must maintain a safe speed. If he would have done that none of this would have happened. It is fairly evident that he was not traveling at 35mph as indicated by witness testimony and expert opinions. That alone constitutes gross negligence resulting in death on the part of Mr. Perdock. You are correct in assuming that the person that you hit in you hypothetical would have been charged with a DUI, but not a felony DUI resulting in injury. If you were grossly over the speed limit and ran into the back of another car, you would no doubt be charged with at the very least gross negligence. But that example has very little to do with this case. I do not believe that Mr. Dinius could be tried for manslaughter. I believe it would fall under “double jeopardy.” Furthermore there is obviously a reason that charge was dropped. IF the court did allow it, the DA would be committing the ultimate career suicide. But I do believe that since Mr. Dinius was charged with manslaughter, and that charge was dropped, the question would fall under “double jeopardy.” Nothing in this case is fog. The justice system, as you well know, has a process for weeding out any statements that are not relevant to the case. All one would have to do is object to the evidence or questioning, and explain the reasoning behind the objection. And trust me you hear that argument a lot. Let’s break down what you consider “smoke.” Let’s start with the running lights. The state of the running lights at the time of the crash is relevant to the case because the prosecution has rested most if not all of its case on the allegation that the running lights were off, resulting in the crash, and the death of Lynn Thornton. The defense has presented a case that provides witnesses and a subject matter expert who all testify that the sail boats running lights were on. This provides the “reasonable doubt” and makes it impossible for the prosecution to place the blame on Mr. Dinius. Remember that Mr. Dinius is innocent until proven guilty. Now moving on to what I can imagine you consider more “smoke.” Let’s discuss the relevance placed not only on the pending investigation of Mr. Perdock, but also the witnesses who testify that his statements about that night are untrue. The statements of Mr. Perdock are very important, being he was involved in the accident. If you go back and look at his statements, you will see that they have changed multiple times. The most important being his statements about his boats speed. Now you have to concede that it is HIGHLY suspicious that he was not called to the stand by the prosecution. It was revealed that the prosecution had been notified of an internal investigation against Mr. Perdock. The prosecution was also notified that there may be information in Mr. Perdock’s file that would hurt his credibility. This was revealed to the defense because, as you know, you have to reveal EVERYTHING. This has been a problem in this case, but the judge did not feel anything improper was going on. The more the defense points out inconsistencies, the weaker Mr. Perdock’s statements become. Now the third argument that I am sure you believe is “smoke” is the chain of custody issue. There have been some very suspicious circumstances brought up during the case. I am truly worried about the fact that deputies on the scene were told NOT to use a breathalyzer on Mr. Perdock. The fact is everyone else had the test done. Now think about this. I am a 6’ 330lbs former football player. Two beers puts me over the legal limit to drive i.e. above .08. By my body standards it takes 1 hour or so for a drink to exit my system. According to what has been presented during the trial, Mr. Perdock was blood tested 2 hours after the incident (I imagine that it was a bit longer). Now without a breathalyzer test, there is no telling if Mr. Perdock had alcohol in his system. You have to admit that it is highly suspicious that Mr. Perdock was not given a breathalyzer test, and taken to a hospital different and farther away from the hospital everyone else was taken to. That in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, that looks really, really bad. Under no circumstances would a deputy be told not to give me, you, or anyone else a breathalyzer test. There is no argument that would support any reasoning for that decision. What is also very strange is the LCSO and LCDAO did not take statements from witnesses that would be fundamental to a defense case. It is even worse that some were told “no” when they gave their statement. A deputy’s job is not to offer an opinion while taking statements. Their job is simply to write the statement and report it. Period. Now all of this is very odd in an investigation. It’s relevant because one party involved in the crash was a senior member of the LCSO. You cannot say that all of these “mistakes” don’t start to add up. Also I recommend that you look at one of the first interview videos Dan Noyes posted, featuring DA Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins was asked about the witnesses that said the running lights were on. He responded by saying that there were none. Well as you, I and everyone else can see that was very false. I would like to direct you to this article, by someone who really knows what he is talking about. It will shed a ton of light on your questions. Again I hope I have answered all of your questions.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Perdock Finally Takes Stand at I-Team