Forensic Expert Confirms; Heather Heyer Was NOT Murdered

So he thinks she was climbing on the hood of the mustang and the fall to the ground killed her?

I'm not so sure about that... I mean I've slid/fallen off the hood of a full size pickup messing around more than once in my life and I didn't even get injured...
so now it was a mustang.

man people suck at cars.

The front vehicle was a maroon mini-van, the second vehicle was a white/silver mustang (hard top I believe), and the guy was driving a gray charger. There is also a parked black Toyota pickup that looked to have been hit on the bumper.

My guess from what I've seen is that he was either distracted by or watching the kid with the flag, rammed into the Toyota (maybe thought that was an attack, or maybe he was trying to escape/hit and run the vehicle as he wasn't paying attention) then started running people over (in a panic, expecting them to get out of the way, or maybe he went into a rage over the damage to his car and lost it aka road rage kind of deal.) I don't think he realized the mustang he rear ended was there, I think he thought he was just going to drive through the crowd (be that on a rampage, or in a panic.)

After that the footage gets real spotty, best guess, he reversed and fled for his life/tried to get away with it (latter being unlikely since he had to know his license plates were plainly visible and there are cameras everywhere these days - but then again, if he went psycho I suppose its possible he didn't think of that. Whatever, he was picked up by the police without incident as far as I've heard so he'd given up on running.)
Except he was already driving toward the crowd before the guy with a flag hit his car. He merely continued on.
 
The more I hear about the Fields case the more I'm inclined to think he has as good a chance of acquittal as did O.J. Simpson.

The fact that he made no attempt to conceal his identity by removing or altering his license plates eliminates suspicion of premeditation. The fact that his car was surrounded by an aggressive mob presents a broad opening for him to say his action was prompted by fearful panic. The fact that prior to the act in question he was seen protesting in favor of White Supremacy has no substantive bearing on his claim of fearful panic. The two issues have no provable connection.

In order to convict Fields the prosecutor must prove that he deliberately and intentionally set about to cause injury or death. Standing in the way of that are countless examples of similar automotive events in which momentarily confused and/or panicked drivers have unintentionally caused damage, injuries, even deaths. Even more convincing are the video examples of motorists being pulled from their cars and beaten, some to death, by mobs during the L.A. riot in 1962 and the Watts riot in 1965.

There is no valid argument opposing the simple behavioral principle that fear causes panic and panic causes erratic, unintentional actions.
He was not forced to drive into that "aggressive mob," if that indeed was the case. When a large crowd disperses from any event, you can expect to sit around for awhile, yes? Waiting for traffic to clear? So why did he choose that side street and why did none of the other cars supposedly in front of his end up hurting people? This whole thing is becoming more and more confusing with the apologists' theories.
 
I'm pretty sure all this information will come out at the trial. That should be when we determine the mechanics of her death.
 
So he thinks she was climbing on the hood of the mustang and the fall to the ground killed her?

I'm not so sure about that... I mean I've slid/fallen off the hood of a full size pickup messing around more than once in my life and I didn't even get injured...
so now it was a mustang.

man people suck at cars.

The front vehicle was a maroon mini-van, the second vehicle was a white/silver mustang (hard top I believe), and the guy was driving a gray charger. There is also a parked black Toyota pickup that looked to have been hit on the bumper.

My guess from what I've seen is that he was either distracted by or watching the kid with the flag, rammed into the Toyota (maybe thought that was an attack, or maybe he was trying to escape/hit and run the vehicle as he wasn't paying attention) then started running people over (in a panic, expecting them to get out of the way, or maybe he went into a rage over the damage to his car and lost it aka road rage kind of deal.) I don't think he realized the mustang he rear ended was there, I think he thought he was just going to drive through the crowd (be that on a rampage, or in a panic.)

After that the footage gets real spotty, best guess, he reversed and fled for his life/tried to get away with it (latter being unlikely since he had to know his license plates were plainly visible and there are cameras everywhere these days - but then again, if he went psycho I suppose its possible he didn't think of that. Whatever, he was picked up by the police without incident as far as I've heard so he'd given up on running.)
if he went psycho I suppose its possible he didn't think of that
I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
 
The more I hear about the Fields case the more I'm inclined to think he has as good a chance of acquittal as did O.J. Simpson.

The fact that he made no attempt to conceal his identity by removing or altering his license plates eliminates suspicion of premeditation. The fact that his car was surrounded by an aggressive mob presents a broad opening for him to say his action was prompted by fearful panic. The fact that prior to the act in question he was seen protesting in favor of White Supremacy has no substantive bearing on his claim of fearful panic. The two issues have no provable connection.

In order to convict Fields the prosecutor must prove that he deliberately and intentionally set about to cause injury or death. Standing in the way of that are countless examples of similar automotive events in which momentarily confused and/or panicked drivers have unintentionally caused damage, injuries, even deaths. Even more convincing are the video examples of motorists being pulled from their cars and beaten, some to death, by mobs during the L.A. riot in 1962 and the Watts riot in 1965.

There is no valid argument opposing the simple behavioral principle that fear causes panic and panic causes erratic, unintentional actions.
He was not forced to drive into that "aggressive mob," if that indeed was the case. When a large crowd disperses from any event, you can expect to sit around for awhile, yes? Waiting for traffic to clear? So why did he choose that side street and why did none of the other cars supposedly in front of his end up hurting people? This whole thing is becoming more and more confusing with the apologists' theories.

Of course it's becoming more confusing with all the apologist theories. They are hoping to muddy up the water enough so that there is doubt in everyone's mind and the idiot that ran those people over is set free.
 
Monkeys fall out of trees all the time. Most survive but some die.
Nobody calls that murder.
It helps keep the gene pool from degenerating.
In urban area not so many trees
but car hoods will do in a pinch.
 

Forum List

Back
Top