This week a jury cleared postal service driver Ian Clement in the death of the sister-in-law of Professor Alan Dershowitz. The defense accused Dershowitz of exerting pressure on the prosecutors to bring the case while Dershowitz’s brother implied that the prosecution did a poor job in the case leading to the acquittal.
Marilyn Dershowitz, 68, was killed last Fourth of July weekend when she fell off her bicycle and was crushed by a truck’s rear wheel. It was a horrific accident as Dershowitz was slowly crushed under the right rear wheel of the seven-ton truck. Reports detailed how people were screaming and honking their horns as people rushed to the side of Dershowitz — commotion that the prosecutors insisted the driver must have seen. Her husband was at the scene and gave testimony at the trial. The couple had decided to go biking that day. Marilyn Dershowitz was a retired court employee and Nathan Dershowitz is an attorney. He had sped up to make a light and she was passing between two seven-ton truck in part of the road that was narrowed that day because of an obstruction. The slow crushing of Dershowitz could not be more horrific as a death and witnesses described the terrible screams from both Dershowitz and pedestrians.
Clement was asked, when he pulled in, whether he had seen the horrible accident and he went to his supervisor and said “I think I’m the guy you’re looking for.”
Clement left the scene and insisted that he did not notice anything like a bump in running over the woman. Yet, Clement, 63, stopped 20 feet after running over Dershowitz and then continued on without getting out of his truck. He was only charged with leaving the scene of the accident.
Notably, the jury took less than a day to clear Clement. Moreover, the weight of a seven-ton truck might have been a deciding factor for the jury which could have assumed that the driver would not feel a significant bump in running over a person with the rear tires. Clement’s attorney also argued that cars are always beeping in New York and that the commotion did not alert Clement that his truck was the source of the problem.
The victim’s husband, Nathan Dershowitz, was clearly not happy with the performance of the prosecutors in the case and said outside of the courthouse, “I’m sorry I wasn’t part of the prosecution team.” When asked what he meant, he just added “You can understand what I’m saying.”
There remains the option of a civil lawsuit for Dershowitz, though there remains immunity issues in such cases with regard to personal liability. There is also the question of possible allegations of contributory negligence in Dershowitz riding between the two large trucks and possibly trying to catch up to her husband at the light — though I am not sure of the support for such a defense given the limited testimony on leaving the scene of an accident. Yet, in a tort action, the standard of proof is lower and the family would have greater control over the case.
Source: NY Daily
Jill,
Sometimes pointing out the obvious canker is not the best ideal……but you are probably right……
Dung Ho know dung from ho’s is dung. You know dung and dung know you.
Sometimes I think I’m the only one who actually clicks the links and read the underlying articles. The driver was NOT charged with criminal negligence in causing the accident. The charge was for failing to stop after the accident and there certainly is some evidence (fairly strong, but YOMV) that he was aware he had been involved in an accident but drove off anyway.
And Blouise, my clear labelling of my post as OT was also an exercise in civility. None of the rest of you responded in kind.
Yes Blouise,
So the point is, OT is O.K. as long is it’s from the “in” crowd, to include your present presentation of OT. Other people, who are not part of the “in” crowd are to be prevented from posting O.T. Some OT is more equal than others!
All this venom spilled over a post clearly marked OT. It’s easy to scroll past, yet it has caused a sensation that OT by some persons is just too awful to ignore!
If it’s that upsetting, at least try reading the content. Under Bush, if I had linked to information on what is really happening with drones, you all would have thanked me. Group bonding over hatred of a poster who the “in” crowd doesn’t like is rather shameful, but something I’ve come to expect on this blog.
Nal’s words to me were in response to my words of apology/explanation as to why I posted the comment on his thread:
“(Sorry Nal … I know this has little to do with the free speech debate but it was this thread’s debate that got me thinking about the subtle changes going on within the intelligence/law enforcement agencies and the fact that the CIA is leaking their displeasure through a Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. Free speech in another form?)”
Nal then wrote, as quoted above:
“Blouise,
The comment section is for whatever you find interesting, and this is certainly interesting. The FBI is also more effective at interrogation.
I also read, I don’t remember where, that Obama is continuing renditions to foreign countries.”
All of the above was an exercise in civility as can be easily seen when placed in context.
When I worked as a cop we responded to a cyclist-bus accident in front of Lincoln Center where a bicycle messenger trying to pass btw a city M-104 bus and a taxi fell just in front of the bus’s rear wheel and his head was crushed. The bus driver had to be told he had run someone over because he hadn’t felt anything. I’m sure the same thing happened here.
Depending on how hot a day it was the asphalt road surface could have been soft enough that it would have been less resistant to downward pressure making it less likely the driver would have noticed anything.
Anyone who has driven in Manhattan knows that it isn’t always possible to tell if you’ve run over something or if it was just the crappy road itself.
I have lived in Manhttan almost sixty years and have read about countless cases of pedestrians and bikers killed in the most horrible ways by the rear wheels of trucks. The drivers of such vehicles are almost always quickly released from responsibilty for the accident by the police and not charged. At times, I have been distressed at how quickly the police have announced that no charges will be filed. Keeping this in mind, I was suprised that charges were filed in this case. It shows there are two types of justice: one for the politically connected and one for everyone else. I know that if I or the vast majority of readers were the victim in this terrible accident no charges would have been filed against the driver.
Where is your rage and fury for all OT. comments, leejcaroll and malisha? When I see those, I will take seriously what you say.
Mike s. has a long history with me and I am responding to him with a legitimate question.
Now, if OT is such a horrible thing on this particular thread, why is it that so many of you have gone OT to go off on me about being OT. There’s hypocrisy there!!!
I suggest that everyone who hates all OT., not just mine, write JT directly and ask him to set a policy on it. That would solve the problem.
Jill, when I want to say something about another topic I take the extra minute or 2 to find the post where it is relevant and put it there. That way you may get more attention to your point because people are at that post to read about that particular subject.
This was a horrendous accident but it seems, from the post, that it was an accident to which she contributed. The road was narrowed and she was between 2 gigantic trucks. The chances of her being seen were most probably negligible at best.
Jill, I don’t think Mike Spindell’s comment was out of line in the least. You have the free speech right to write what you wrote in your comment, and Professor Turley has the free speech right to decide not to moderate it out of the thread (or whatever blog-captains do) but Mike Spindell also has the same right to comment on your comment and what it says about him is that he is expressing himself succinctly and eloquently.
Professor Turley is a friend of Professor Dershowitz’s. He wrote an article about something that means a lot to him and that also has significance to all Americans considering it involves: traffic conduct in the age of non-fossil fuel travel; responsibility; the jury system; criminal justice, etc. etc. Mike Spindell wrote a comment about something that means a lot to him, using the phrase “entitled purity,” which gave us all something to think about. But you said:
“If you cannot come to terms with what is in the report on drones, you should ask yourself why you cannot. Is there something about this report which disturbs you?”
Who said Mike Spindell “could not come to terms with” what was in the report on drones?
That came from nowhere, like a drone.
Yes, I feel quite defensive about the FREE expression of your attitude toward Mike’s comment; I am glad I felt free to express that. ❗
Here is what NAL wrote to Blouise yesterday: ”
Blouise,
The comment section is for whatever you find interesting, and this is certainly interesting. The FBI is also more effective at interrogation.
I also read, I don’t remember where, that Obama is continuing renditions to foreign countries.”
I see OT threads all the time on this blog. Mine was an attempt to give information that should matter to people who read this blog. Interestingly, I see some people attacked for being OT and others praised (such as Blouise).
If JT bans all OT, then I certainly will respect that. Until that time, if you cannot bear to scroll past something labeled OT, then ask yourself this. Why do you not make your criticism of OT quickly, with personal attacks to everyone who does this? Why do you let some stand, while hating others? Is it because of the information or the person reporting the information? If so, you are not being equitable in your treatment.
This is important information–a study of what is really happening with drones. I would think most people on this blog would be interested in the information. But feel free to ignore it.
Jill,
It get tiring having folks hijack threads purely for a sole purpose of routing ones attention which has nothing to do with the post…. As Mike said, rarely do we have people jack it by the first post….. In your defense, there are others equally as guilty as you…… But they usually hurry it later in the thread…..I’ll give you credit for being honest enough to do it the way you did…..Even though I do not like it either…..
Mike,
You need to quit with such silly personal attacks. Threads are often OT. I clearly stated so, and the solution is for your not to read truth which upsets you.
If you cannot come to terms with what is in the report on drones, you should ask yourself why you cannot. Is there something about this report which disturbs you? It is a well-documented examination of the USG’s drone program. Point out where the repost is incorrect or ignore it. But attacking people for posting accurate information says a lot about you, not me.
Dredd,
And you are so right……
Mike,
What else is new….. It’s called placement…….of advertising…….
I think the jury got it right. There is no possible way the driver could know or feel what was happening. While I feel for her and the family, she also was part of the problem since the driver did not do a high speed turn nor do something that would be unanticipated. I think that the family will have a better chance in civil court which is where they should seek redress.
The driver was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident, not negligent homocide. I read the NYT article and there was no substance to the accusation that Dershowitz pressured the prosecution to bring the case. There also seemed enough evidence there that it was not out of the ordinary to prosecute the truck driver. In fact, just from reading the NYT article, I’d be leaning toward guilty, but you really can’t criticize the jury on a case like this unless you heard what they heard. OTOH, I’m not sure it would serve any purpose to have convicted this guy and thrown him in jail even if he did knowingly fail to stop at the scene of an accident.
I’m a little curious how she got run over. The story says she was run over by a rear tire. Did she happen to fall off her bike right behind a postal truck and the postal driver just then happen to back up over her? Or maybe she was going along the side and fell in front of a rear tire? Terrible tragedy.
Very sad set of facts in this case.
Very, very rarely do threads get hijacked by the first comment. However, some of us with their strong sense of entitled purity, believe that the “deep insight” that exists in their own mind overrides anything else. Ah, to be that certain of the black and white of reality. The authoritarian mindset is not just a failing of the Right Wing.
OT. but important: “A vitally important and thoroughly documented new report on the impact of Obama’s drone campaign has just been released by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. Entitled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to
Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan”, the report details the terrorizing effects of Obama’s drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from administration officials about that campaign. The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians”.
The report is “based on over 130 detailed interviews with victims and witnesses of drone activity, their family members, current and former Pakistani government officials, representatives from five major Pakistani political parties, subject matter experts, lawyers, medical professionals, development and humanitarian workers, members of civil society, academics, and journalists.” Witnesses “provided first-hand
accounts of drone strikes, and provided testimony about a range of issues, including the missile strikes themselves, the strike sites, the victims’ bodies, or a family member or members killed or injured in the strike”.
Here is the powerful first three paragraphs of the report, summarizing its main findings:
drone report
Whilte noting that it is difficult to obtain precise information on the number of civilian deaths “because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability”, the report nonetheless concludes: “while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.”
But beyond body counts, there’s the fact that “US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury”:
drone report
In other words, the people in the areas targeted by Obama’s drone campaign are being systematically terrorized. There’s just no other word for it. It is a campaign of terror – highly effective terror – regardless of what noble progressive sentiments one wishes to believe reside in the heart of the leader ordering it. And that’s precisely why the report, to its great credit, uses that term to describe the Obama policy: the drone campaign “terrorizes men, women, and children”.
Along the same lines, note that the report confirms what had already been previously documented: the Obama campaign’s despicable (and likely criminal) targeting of rescuers who arrive to provide aid to the victims of the original strike. Noting that even funerals of drone victims have been targeted under Obama, the report documents that the US has “made family members afraid to attend funerals”. The result of this tactic is as predictable as it is heinous:
“Secondary strikes have discouraged average civilians from coming to one another’s rescue, and even inhibited the provision of emergency medical assistance from humanitarian workers.”
In the hierarchy of war crimes, deliberately targeting rescuers and funerals – so that aid workers are petrified to treat the wounded and family members are intimidated out of mourning their loved ones – ranks rather high, to put that mildly. Indeed, the US itself has long maintained that such “secondary strikes” are a prime hallmark of some of the world’s most despised terrorist groups.
Perhaps worst of all, the report details at length that the prime excuse offered by Obama defenders for this continuous killing – it Keeps Us Safe™ by killing The Terrorists™ – is dubious “at best”; indeed, the opposite is more likely true:
drone report
All the way back in 2004, the Rumsfeld Pentagon commissioned a study to determine the causes of anti-US terrorism, and even it concluded: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.” Running around the world beating your chest, bellowing “we’re at war!”, and bombing multiple Muslim countries does not keep one safe. It manifestly does the opposite, since it ensures that even the most rational people will calculate that targeting Americans with violence in response is just and necessary to deter further aggression.” glenn greenwald at the Guardian today