When the Buzayans complained that Officer Ly’s conduct was unlawful, the first thing they did was to file a formal complaint with the Davis Police Department. Every complaint filed proceeds to the IAD and Sgt. Gina Anderson.
According to the complaint, the Buzayans met with Anderson on June 28, 2005 where the minor told Anderson that her mother had been the one driving on the day in question.
It was Anderson’s job to investigate the actions of Officers Hartz and Ly regarding the complaint. It is not the job of the IAD to continue a criminal investigation against the defendant. However, that is exactly what Anderson did during her IAD interview with the minor.
“But your mother has admitted to driving the car… So that would mean that if your citation was dismissed then your mother would be arrested… I just needed to let you know that if you are not the person who did it, she’s admitting to doing it, then your case will end up getting dismissed and we would end up arresting her.”
In a May interview with KGO, the Buzayans’ attorney, former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, says that the actions of Sgt Anderson were improper.
“They were putting a lot of pressure on her, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to conduct an internal investigation about whether or not a police officer has conducted himself properly.”
It is very important that the public understands that the job of the IAD, Sgt. Anderson in this case, is to ascertain whether or not the officers involved in this case–Hartz and Ly–acted properly. It is not her job to interrogate the witness. It is not her job to investigate whether the minor or her mother was the one driving. It is not her job to obtain a confession from the minor.
Anderson admits as much during the course of the interview of the minor:
“This is a side note because I’m interested in Officer Ly’s behavior, and if he violated any (phone rings), if he violated any of our department policy then I need to know that too. As far as on a personnel level we can handle that with him. Because you know we take allegations of misconduct by our police officers seriously. So that is a complete side-note. I want to get back to it and handle it, but that is an aside to what I’m talking about right now.”
In fact, she is specifically forbidden from doing so.
As the complaint filed with the Northern Division of the California Federal District Court alleges:
“Defendant Anderson also knew that it was unlawful and against Davis Police Department policy to use an investigation of a Davis citizen’s complaint as an opportunity to browbeat a minor by threatening her with her mother’s incarceration.”
As we suggested in our seven-part series on Police Oversight, IAD’s are notorious for problems in terms of their ability to investigate the wrongdoings of police officers. That is one reason why many experts have suggested removing internal investigations from the IAD and placing it in an independent body of law enforcement professionals. Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic–complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first. While the current model has some problems, at least now Anderson knows that Ombudsman Bob Aaronson will be looking over her shoulder, and that alone could be an improvement for this system.
Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson’s actions in the Buzayan case violated the minor’s civil rights.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Excellent example of the value of this blog.. We would never see these facts( exact quotes from the recorded tapes) reported in the Enterprise or written about by Dunning or Rifkin.
Spread the word through your email lists about this valuable alternative news resource that challenges the news censorship of the Enterprise.
Excellent example of the value of this blog.. We would never see these facts( exact quotes from the recorded tapes) reported in the Enterprise or written about by Dunning or Rifkin.
Spread the word through your email lists about this valuable alternative news resource that challenges the news censorship of the Enterprise.
Excellent example of the value of this blog.. We would never see these facts( exact quotes from the recorded tapes) reported in the Enterprise or written about by Dunning or Rifkin.
Spread the word through your email lists about this valuable alternative news resource that challenges the news censorship of the Enterprise.
Excellent example of the value of this blog.. We would never see these facts( exact quotes from the recorded tapes) reported in the Enterprise or written about by Dunning or Rifkin.
Spread the word through your email lists about this valuable alternative news resource that challenges the news censorship of the Enterprise.
“Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic–complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first.”
Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary. I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.
Every organization, be it Longs Drugs, UC Davis, or The San Francisco Chronicle, needs to internally review and investigate complaints.
While an outsider has the advantages of independence and hence a lack of a conflict of interest, insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)
“Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson’s actions in the Buzayan case were unlawful.”
Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime?
And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?
“Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic–complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first.”
Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary. I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.
Every organization, be it Longs Drugs, UC Davis, or The San Francisco Chronicle, needs to internally review and investigate complaints.
While an outsider has the advantages of independence and hence a lack of a conflict of interest, insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)
“Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson’s actions in the Buzayan case were unlawful.”
Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime?
And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?
“Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic–complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first.”
Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary. I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.
Every organization, be it Longs Drugs, UC Davis, or The San Francisco Chronicle, needs to internally review and investigate complaints.
While an outsider has the advantages of independence and hence a lack of a conflict of interest, insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)
“Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson’s actions in the Buzayan case were unlawful.”
Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime?
And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?
“Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic–complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first.”
Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary. I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.
Every organization, be it Longs Drugs, UC Davis, or The San Francisco Chronicle, needs to internally review and investigate complaints.
While an outsider has the advantages of independence and hence a lack of a conflict of interest, insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)
“Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson’s actions in the Buzayan case were unlawful.”
Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime?
And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?
Rich:
“Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary.”
I agree with that. The question is whether it needs to be in the form of an IAD or whether there can be an independent review board that is in place to handle internal investigations. Imagine, giving that power to the current PAC members.
“I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.”
The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.
In the proper system with adequate oversight, it perhaps would not pose a problem. But the research I’ve seen casts a very poor light on IADs.
“insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)”
And the problem with police agencies is that insiders also seem to have a social and institutional incentive to protect the department by insulating it from scrutiny. Those internal complaints have nationwide over a 90% unfounded rate. Many of these unfounded cases end up paying out sizable settlements. The discrepency in those numbers suggests a problem with the internal review process itself.
“Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime? And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?”
She’s the subject of a civil lawsuit, but the trial will determine whether Anderson violated the rights of the minor in this case. A violation of one’s civil rights is unlawful, but you are correct that this is not a criminal trial, therefore the ruling is whether or not Anderson is civilly liable for damages.
Rich:
“Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary.”
I agree with that. The question is whether it needs to be in the form of an IAD or whether there can be an independent review board that is in place to handle internal investigations. Imagine, giving that power to the current PAC members.
“I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.”
The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.
In the proper system with adequate oversight, it perhaps would not pose a problem. But the research I’ve seen casts a very poor light on IADs.
“insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)”
And the problem with police agencies is that insiders also seem to have a social and institutional incentive to protect the department by insulating it from scrutiny. Those internal complaints have nationwide over a 90% unfounded rate. Many of these unfounded cases end up paying out sizable settlements. The discrepency in those numbers suggests a problem with the internal review process itself.
“Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime? And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?”
She’s the subject of a civil lawsuit, but the trial will determine whether Anderson violated the rights of the minor in this case. A violation of one’s civil rights is unlawful, but you are correct that this is not a criminal trial, therefore the ruling is whether or not Anderson is civilly liable for damages.
Rich:
“Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary.”
I agree with that. The question is whether it needs to be in the form of an IAD or whether there can be an independent review board that is in place to handle internal investigations. Imagine, giving that power to the current PAC members.
“I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.”
The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.
In the proper system with adequate oversight, it perhaps would not pose a problem. But the research I’ve seen casts a very poor light on IADs.
“insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)”
And the problem with police agencies is that insiders also seem to have a social and institutional incentive to protect the department by insulating it from scrutiny. Those internal complaints have nationwide over a 90% unfounded rate. Many of these unfounded cases end up paying out sizable settlements. The discrepency in those numbers suggests a problem with the internal review process itself.
“Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime? And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?”
She’s the subject of a civil lawsuit, but the trial will determine whether Anderson violated the rights of the minor in this case. A violation of one’s civil rights is unlawful, but you are correct that this is not a criminal trial, therefore the ruling is whether or not Anderson is civilly liable for damages.
Rich:
“Even though it is true that an internal investigation can be insufficient, an internal investigation is nonetheless necessary.”
I agree with that. The question is whether it needs to be in the form of an IAD or whether there can be an independent review board that is in place to handle internal investigations. Imagine, giving that power to the current PAC members.
“I don’t see any reason why it matters if internal affairs does the first investigation.”
The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.
In the proper system with adequate oversight, it perhaps would not pose a problem. But the research I’ve seen casts a very poor light on IADs.
“insiders have some advantages, too. They can often quickly tell when something seems amiss. Insofar as they want their organization to perform better, they do have an incentive to root out problems. (Of course, they ought not be the only players given the responsibility to root out trouble.)”
And the problem with police agencies is that insiders also seem to have a social and institutional incentive to protect the department by insulating it from scrutiny. Those internal complaints have nationwide over a 90% unfounded rate. Many of these unfounded cases end up paying out sizable settlements. The discrepency in those numbers suggests a problem with the internal review process itself.
“Unlawful? Is Anderson being tried for a crime? And if not, is Anderson the subject of a civil lawsuit?”
She’s the subject of a civil lawsuit, but the trial will determine whether Anderson violated the rights of the minor in this case. A violation of one’s civil rights is unlawful, but you are correct that this is not a criminal trial, therefore the ruling is whether or not Anderson is civilly liable for damages.
I do not know if the police broke the law or not.
I can say that an individual outside of the Police Department can be charged with a misdemeanor if they lie in an investigation leading to an arrest. I do not know if the law applies to police officers or not, but it should. I can also say for certain that DPD have fabricated evidence/not told the truth/distorted stories in prior cases so I would not be surprised if they did the same thing in this case.
Furthermore, I will add that if a group of individuals conspire to lie in an investigation leading to an arrest then they can be charged with a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor and the charge is a felony. If everyone else is held to this standard then the standard should also apply to police officers as well.
A problem with the DPD (and other police depts) is that police officers (at least some) think they are somehow above the law. Also thay act as fraternal organizations and support each other regardless of the situation.SAH
I do not know if the police broke the law or not.
I can say that an individual outside of the Police Department can be charged with a misdemeanor if they lie in an investigation leading to an arrest. I do not know if the law applies to police officers or not, but it should. I can also say for certain that DPD have fabricated evidence/not told the truth/distorted stories in prior cases so I would not be surprised if they did the same thing in this case.
Furthermore, I will add that if a group of individuals conspire to lie in an investigation leading to an arrest then they can be charged with a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor and the charge is a felony. If everyone else is held to this standard then the standard should also apply to police officers as well.
A problem with the DPD (and other police depts) is that police officers (at least some) think they are somehow above the law. Also thay act as fraternal organizations and support each other regardless of the situation.SAH
I do not know if the police broke the law or not.
I can say that an individual outside of the Police Department can be charged with a misdemeanor if they lie in an investigation leading to an arrest. I do not know if the law applies to police officers or not, but it should. I can also say for certain that DPD have fabricated evidence/not told the truth/distorted stories in prior cases so I would not be surprised if they did the same thing in this case.
Furthermore, I will add that if a group of individuals conspire to lie in an investigation leading to an arrest then they can be charged with a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor and the charge is a felony. If everyone else is held to this standard then the standard should also apply to police officers as well.
A problem with the DPD (and other police depts) is that police officers (at least some) think they are somehow above the law. Also thay act as fraternal organizations and support each other regardless of the situation.SAH
I do not know if the police broke the law or not.
I can say that an individual outside of the Police Department can be charged with a misdemeanor if they lie in an investigation leading to an arrest. I do not know if the law applies to police officers or not, but it should. I can also say for certain that DPD have fabricated evidence/not told the truth/distorted stories in prior cases so I would not be surprised if they did the same thing in this case.
Furthermore, I will add that if a group of individuals conspire to lie in an investigation leading to an arrest then they can be charged with a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor and the charge is a felony. If everyone else is held to this standard then the standard should also apply to police officers as well.
A problem with the DPD (and other police depts) is that police officers (at least some) think they are somehow above the law. Also thay act as fraternal organizations and support each other regardless of the situation.SAH
“The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.”
At some point, you have to be pragmatic. It just makes practical sense to have an internal inquiry right away in most cases.
For example, say Citizen Q files a complaint alleging that Officer P spit in her face, fondled her chest, and called Q a derogatory racial slur. Q alleges that this incident took place on December 3 at 4 pm.
If Q’s allegations were true, this would be considered a serious case of misconduct, enough to permanently remove Officer P from his job.
If Internal Affairs were assigned to investigate this claim, it could immediately determine whether Officer P was even on duty when this alleged event took place, and if P was on duty, where he was at that time and what other officers, if any, were with him.
All of that could be done in 5 minutes or less.
In this case, it turns out that Officer P was attending a racial sensitivity seminar in Florida at the time of the alleged incident and Citizen P was arrested for filing a false claim.
However, had Internal Affairs been forced to wait to investigate the matter after an outside body did its own investigation, the matter might linger for weeks or even months, and all that while, the DPD might have a “problem” cop roaming the streets causing trouble.
My point is this: for the sake of efficiency, you have to allow the internal investigation to go first.
I don’t buy the idea that an internal investigation will corrupt a later outside investigation, unless the outside investigator is biased in favor of the cops.
“The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.”
At some point, you have to be pragmatic. It just makes practical sense to have an internal inquiry right away in most cases.
For example, say Citizen Q files a complaint alleging that Officer P spit in her face, fondled her chest, and called Q a derogatory racial slur. Q alleges that this incident took place on December 3 at 4 pm.
If Q’s allegations were true, this would be considered a serious case of misconduct, enough to permanently remove Officer P from his job.
If Internal Affairs were assigned to investigate this claim, it could immediately determine whether Officer P was even on duty when this alleged event took place, and if P was on duty, where he was at that time and what other officers, if any, were with him.
All of that could be done in 5 minutes or less.
In this case, it turns out that Officer P was attending a racial sensitivity seminar in Florida at the time of the alleged incident and Citizen P was arrested for filing a false claim.
However, had Internal Affairs been forced to wait to investigate the matter after an outside body did its own investigation, the matter might linger for weeks or even months, and all that while, the DPD might have a “problem” cop roaming the streets causing trouble.
My point is this: for the sake of efficiency, you have to allow the internal investigation to go first.
I don’t buy the idea that an internal investigation will corrupt a later outside investigation, unless the outside investigator is biased in favor of the cops.
“The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.”
At some point, you have to be pragmatic. It just makes practical sense to have an internal inquiry right away in most cases.
For example, say Citizen Q files a complaint alleging that Officer P spit in her face, fondled her chest, and called Q a derogatory racial slur. Q alleges that this incident took place on December 3 at 4 pm.
If Q’s allegations were true, this would be considered a serious case of misconduct, enough to permanently remove Officer P from his job.
If Internal Affairs were assigned to investigate this claim, it could immediately determine whether Officer P was even on duty when this alleged event took place, and if P was on duty, where he was at that time and what other officers, if any, were with him.
All of that could be done in 5 minutes or less.
In this case, it turns out that Officer P was attending a racial sensitivity seminar in Florida at the time of the alleged incident and Citizen P was arrested for filing a false claim.
However, had Internal Affairs been forced to wait to investigate the matter after an outside body did its own investigation, the matter might linger for weeks or even months, and all that while, the DPD might have a “problem” cop roaming the streets causing trouble.
My point is this: for the sake of efficiency, you have to allow the internal investigation to go first.
I don’t buy the idea that an internal investigation will corrupt a later outside investigation, unless the outside investigator is biased in favor of the cops.
“The major problem would be contamination of the investigation. The other problem is what we have seen in this area, where subsequent reviews have simply looked over the initial investigation rather than conducting a separate an independent investigation.”
At some point, you have to be pragmatic. It just makes practical sense to have an internal inquiry right away in most cases.
For example, say Citizen Q files a complaint alleging that Officer P spit in her face, fondled her chest, and called Q a derogatory racial slur. Q alleges that this incident took place on December 3 at 4 pm.
If Q’s allegations were true, this would be considered a serious case of misconduct, enough to permanently remove Officer P from his job.
If Internal Affairs were assigned to investigate this claim, it could immediately determine whether Officer P was even on duty when this alleged event took place, and if P was on duty, where he was at that time and what other officers, if any, were with him.
All of that could be done in 5 minutes or less.
In this case, it turns out that Officer P was attending a racial sensitivity seminar in Florida at the time of the alleged incident and Citizen P was arrested for filing a false claim.
However, had Internal Affairs been forced to wait to investigate the matter after an outside body did its own investigation, the matter might linger for weeks or even months, and all that while, the DPD might have a “problem” cop roaming the streets causing trouble.
My point is this: for the sake of efficiency, you have to allow the internal investigation to go first.
I don’t buy the idea that an internal investigation will corrupt a later outside investigation, unless the outside investigator is biased in favor of the cops.
Rich:
There are some alternative Models that may be better.
This is my analysis from September:
Alternative Models
The San Jose model has an auditor who sits in on all investigations and monitors the IAD’s performance.
Also the Boise model allows for the IAD, the Ombudsman, or another external agency to do the primary investigation. These happen in the same period of time as an IAD investigation.
And then Burris’ suggestion is simply to replace the IAD with an independent review board like we have with the PAC, again they would conduct the interviews and investigation in the same time period as an IAD.
But there is a lot of concern that the IAD is too protective of police officers and have a tendency to color and taint future investigations.
Rich:
There are some alternative Models that may be better.
This is my analysis from September:
Alternative Models
The San Jose model has an auditor who sits in on all investigations and monitors the IAD’s performance.
Also the Boise model allows for the IAD, the Ombudsman, or another external agency to do the primary investigation. These happen in the same period of time as an IAD investigation.
And then Burris’ suggestion is simply to replace the IAD with an independent review board like we have with the PAC, again they would conduct the interviews and investigation in the same time period as an IAD.
But there is a lot of concern that the IAD is too protective of police officers and have a tendency to color and taint future investigations.
Rich:
There are some alternative Models that may be better.
This is my analysis from September:
Alternative Models
The San Jose model has an auditor who sits in on all investigations and monitors the IAD’s performance.
Also the Boise model allows for the IAD, the Ombudsman, or another external agency to do the primary investigation. These happen in the same period of time as an IAD investigation.
And then Burris’ suggestion is simply to replace the IAD with an independent review board like we have with the PAC, again they would conduct the interviews and investigation in the same time period as an IAD.
But there is a lot of concern that the IAD is too protective of police officers and have a tendency to color and taint future investigations.
Rich:
There are some alternative Models that may be better.
This is my analysis from September:
Alternative Models
The San Jose model has an auditor who sits in on all investigations and monitors the IAD’s performance.
Also the Boise model allows for the IAD, the Ombudsman, or another external agency to do the primary investigation. These happen in the same period of time as an IAD investigation.
And then Burris’ suggestion is simply to replace the IAD with an independent review board like we have with the PAC, again they would conduct the interviews and investigation in the same time period as an IAD.
But there is a lot of concern that the IAD is too protective of police officers and have a tendency to color and taint future investigations.
I’m really interested in hearing the outcome of the civil trial. Handling juvenile cases is really difficult. With teenagers, the part of the brain that deals with logic and consequence is still in development, while the area dealing with emotion is in a full roar. The Police Officer could have been trying to lay out all consequences for Halema to test her resolve on what she said happened. An adult would just dismiss the argument and not react emotionally. Not so with a child. Remember, we are dealing with human interaction which is almost never smooth. The court should decide whether civil rights were violated.
I’m really interested in hearing the outcome of the civil trial. Handling juvenile cases is really difficult. With teenagers, the part of the brain that deals with logic and consequence is still in development, while the area dealing with emotion is in a full roar. The Police Officer could have been trying to lay out all consequences for Halema to test her resolve on what she said happened. An adult would just dismiss the argument and not react emotionally. Not so with a child. Remember, we are dealing with human interaction which is almost never smooth. The court should decide whether civil rights were violated.
I’m really interested in hearing the outcome of the civil trial. Handling juvenile cases is really difficult. With teenagers, the part of the brain that deals with logic and consequence is still in development, while the area dealing with emotion is in a full roar. The Police Officer could have been trying to lay out all consequences for Halema to test her resolve on what she said happened. An adult would just dismiss the argument and not react emotionally. Not so with a child. Remember, we are dealing with human interaction which is almost never smooth. The court should decide whether civil rights were violated.
I’m really interested in hearing the outcome of the civil trial. Handling juvenile cases is really difficult. With teenagers, the part of the brain that deals with logic and consequence is still in development, while the area dealing with emotion is in a full roar. The Police Officer could have been trying to lay out all consequences for Halema to test her resolve on what she said happened. An adult would just dismiss the argument and not react emotionally. Not so with a child. Remember, we are dealing with human interaction which is almost never smooth. The court should decide whether civil rights were violated.
It’s a shame that the criminal trial was abrogated. I understand that the judge had good legal reasons for making the decision that he did, and that is his job, so (I assume) he did the right thing.
However, had the legal case proceded, some of the important factual questions in this case — such as who was really driving the Buzayan’s SUV — would have been answered.
I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the two witnesses (who said that they saw the SUV bump the other woman’s car) said that the passenger of the SUV was wearing a ħijāb (حجاب) and the driver was not. To me, that is the crucial question. Because if the driver was wearing a ħijāb, then the Buzayans clearly lied to the police and the mother ought to have been prosecuted for doing so.
What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.
When Officer Peng met them at their house a few hours later, the mother had her headscarf on and Halema’s head was uncovered. If the witnesses did in fact say that the driver did not have on a headscarf, but the passenger did, then that is terribly damning evidence against the Buzayans.
It’s a shame that the criminal trial was abrogated. I understand that the judge had good legal reasons for making the decision that he did, and that is his job, so (I assume) he did the right thing.
However, had the legal case proceded, some of the important factual questions in this case — such as who was really driving the Buzayan’s SUV — would have been answered.
I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the two witnesses (who said that they saw the SUV bump the other woman’s car) said that the passenger of the SUV was wearing a ħijāb (حجاب) and the driver was not. To me, that is the crucial question. Because if the driver was wearing a ħijāb, then the Buzayans clearly lied to the police and the mother ought to have been prosecuted for doing so.
What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.
When Officer Peng met them at their house a few hours later, the mother had her headscarf on and Halema’s head was uncovered. If the witnesses did in fact say that the driver did not have on a headscarf, but the passenger did, then that is terribly damning evidence against the Buzayans.
It’s a shame that the criminal trial was abrogated. I understand that the judge had good legal reasons for making the decision that he did, and that is his job, so (I assume) he did the right thing.
However, had the legal case proceded, some of the important factual questions in this case — such as who was really driving the Buzayan’s SUV — would have been answered.
I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the two witnesses (who said that they saw the SUV bump the other woman’s car) said that the passenger of the SUV was wearing a ħijāb (حجاب) and the driver was not. To me, that is the crucial question. Because if the driver was wearing a ħijāb, then the Buzayans clearly lied to the police and the mother ought to have been prosecuted for doing so.
What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.
When Officer Peng met them at their house a few hours later, the mother had her headscarf on and Halema’s head was uncovered. If the witnesses did in fact say that the driver did not have on a headscarf, but the passenger did, then that is terribly damning evidence against the Buzayans.
It’s a shame that the criminal trial was abrogated. I understand that the judge had good legal reasons for making the decision that he did, and that is his job, so (I assume) he did the right thing.
However, had the legal case proceded, some of the important factual questions in this case — such as who was really driving the Buzayan’s SUV — would have been answered.
I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the two witnesses (who said that they saw the SUV bump the other woman’s car) said that the passenger of the SUV was wearing a ħijāb (حجاب) and the driver was not. To me, that is the crucial question. Because if the driver was wearing a ħijāb, then the Buzayans clearly lied to the police and the mother ought to have been prosecuted for doing so.
What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.
When Officer Peng met them at their house a few hours later, the mother had her headscarf on and Halema’s head was uncovered. If the witnesses did in fact say that the driver did not have on a headscarf, but the passenger did, then that is terribly damning evidence against the Buzayans.
“What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.”
Tonight I will go back over the transcript I have not seen that in the transcript.
But to me, the compelling evidence is the forensic evidence and visual evidence that suggests there was never any accident between the SUV and the Wonhof vehicle. I’ve seen the Buzayan car in person and there is a long but tiny scratch up high on the side of their car. The Wonhof vehicle had a big basketball shaped dent. I’m not an expert, but I don’t see how one could have caused the other.
The lab they sent it to found no paint transfer match. The paint on the Wonhof vehicle was white but the SUV is blue. And their expert witness testified that they saw no way the two vehicles contacted each other.
Even the witness never reported seeing contact only that they saw the vehicle close to the other vehicle, they went over and saw the damage.
Yes, I know that you can probably find an expert who will tell you anything, but the witness’ assessment matches my own non-expert sense of things.
“What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.”
Tonight I will go back over the transcript I have not seen that in the transcript.
But to me, the compelling evidence is the forensic evidence and visual evidence that suggests there was never any accident between the SUV and the Wonhof vehicle. I’ve seen the Buzayan car in person and there is a long but tiny scratch up high on the side of their car. The Wonhof vehicle had a big basketball shaped dent. I’m not an expert, but I don’t see how one could have caused the other.
The lab they sent it to found no paint transfer match. The paint on the Wonhof vehicle was white but the SUV is blue. And their expert witness testified that they saw no way the two vehicles contacted each other.
Even the witness never reported seeing contact only that they saw the vehicle close to the other vehicle, they went over and saw the damage.
Yes, I know that you can probably find an expert who will tell you anything, but the witness’ assessment matches my own non-expert sense of things.
“What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.”
Tonight I will go back over the transcript I have not seen that in the transcript.
But to me, the compelling evidence is the forensic evidence and visual evidence that suggests there was never any accident between the SUV and the Wonhof vehicle. I’ve seen the Buzayan car in person and there is a long but tiny scratch up high on the side of their car. The Wonhof vehicle had a big basketball shaped dent. I’m not an expert, but I don’t see how one could have caused the other.
The lab they sent it to found no paint transfer match. The paint on the Wonhof vehicle was white but the SUV is blue. And their expert witness testified that they saw no way the two vehicles contacted each other.
Even the witness never reported seeing contact only that they saw the vehicle close to the other vehicle, they went over and saw the damage.
Yes, I know that you can probably find an expert who will tell you anything, but the witness’ assessment matches my own non-expert sense of things.
“What is not credible at all is what the Buzayans said to Officer Peng — that Halema, who apparently never wears a ħijāb to school or when she is with her girlfriends, was wearing her ħijāb that day in the car and her mother was not.”
Tonight I will go back over the transcript I have not seen that in the transcript.
But to me, the compelling evidence is the forensic evidence and visual evidence that suggests there was never any accident between the SUV and the Wonhof vehicle. I’ve seen the Buzayan car in person and there is a long but tiny scratch up high on the side of their car. The Wonhof vehicle had a big basketball shaped dent. I’m not an expert, but I don’t see how one could have caused the other.
The lab they sent it to found no paint transfer match. The paint on the Wonhof vehicle was white but the SUV is blue. And their expert witness testified that they saw no way the two vehicles contacted each other.
Even the witness never reported seeing contact only that they saw the vehicle close to the other vehicle, they went over and saw the damage.
Yes, I know that you can probably find an expert who will tell you anything, but the witness’ assessment matches my own non-expert sense of things.
Matching the damage to both vehicles was critical and I wonder if the DPD bothered to do a careful examination. OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.
Another thing to consider – yesterday I went to a Sears store with a parking garage. As I sat there, a woman driving Toyota Sequoia pulled into a space next to a pole – a big round cement column. The woman rubbed the side of the pole causing damage and she was completely oblivious to the paint damange she had done – she just put her sun screen up (in an undground parking place and completely covered by another level)then she got out of the vehicle and went directly into the store. I would estimate that she caused at least $500 damage to her car.SAH
Matching the damage to both vehicles was critical and I wonder if the DPD bothered to do a careful examination. OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.
Another thing to consider – yesterday I went to a Sears store with a parking garage. As I sat there, a woman driving Toyota Sequoia pulled into a space next to a pole – a big round cement column. The woman rubbed the side of the pole causing damage and she was completely oblivious to the paint damange she had done – she just put her sun screen up (in an undground parking place and completely covered by another level)then she got out of the vehicle and went directly into the store. I would estimate that she caused at least $500 damage to her car.SAH
Matching the damage to both vehicles was critical and I wonder if the DPD bothered to do a careful examination. OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.
Another thing to consider – yesterday I went to a Sears store with a parking garage. As I sat there, a woman driving Toyota Sequoia pulled into a space next to a pole – a big round cement column. The woman rubbed the side of the pole causing damage and she was completely oblivious to the paint damange she had done – she just put her sun screen up (in an undground parking place and completely covered by another level)then she got out of the vehicle and went directly into the store. I would estimate that she caused at least $500 damage to her car.SAH
Matching the damage to both vehicles was critical and I wonder if the DPD bothered to do a careful examination. OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.
Another thing to consider – yesterday I went to a Sears store with a parking garage. As I sat there, a woman driving Toyota Sequoia pulled into a space next to a pole – a big round cement column. The woman rubbed the side of the pole causing damage and she was completely oblivious to the paint damange she had done – she just put her sun screen up (in an undground parking place and completely covered by another level)then she got out of the vehicle and went directly into the store. I would estimate that she caused at least $500 damage to her car.SAH
“OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.”
One thing that was not well-reported is that they had a very sick son at the time and that was their primary concern, for $800, they figured it would be better to just put it to rest. Little did they realize that this was not put to rest as Ly had implied.
“OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.”
One thing that was not well-reported is that they had a very sick son at the time and that was their primary concern, for $800, they figured it would be better to just put it to rest. Little did they realize that this was not put to rest as Ly had implied.
“OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.”
One thing that was not well-reported is that they had a very sick son at the time and that was their primary concern, for $800, they figured it would be better to just put it to rest. Little did they realize that this was not put to rest as Ly had implied.
“OTOH I would never pay for damage if I did not feel responsible for it.”
One thing that was not well-reported is that they had a very sick son at the time and that was their primary concern, for $800, they figured it would be better to just put it to rest. Little did they realize that this was not put to rest as Ly had implied.
Even if you assume that there was absolutely no damage to the Wonhof car — which apparently there was — and therefore the Buzayan SUV never made any contact at all with the Wonhof car, that still would not excuse (in my mind) the Buzayans lying to the police about who the driver of the SUV was that day. Now, I don’t know that the Buzayans lied to the police. It’s possible that the mother was driving the SUV. But if the witnesses did report that the mother was wearing a headscarf and that the mother was in the passenger seat, then the Buzayans’ story is entirely incredible.
To believe the Buzayan’s claim — that in the afternoon the mother was not wearing her ħijāb (حجاب) in public and the daughter was, but then, a few hours later, when Ly Peng shows up, the mother had a ħijāb on inside her house, but Halema did not — is ridiculous. Only a person with extreme prejudice or no judgment whatsoever would believe such a story.
If you found your child’s clothes covered in ketchup, and the bottle of ketchup that was full when you left was not empty in the garbage, and he claimed that he didn’t have any idea what happened to the ketchup, would you believe him? If so, you would believe the ħijāb (حجاب) switcheroo coverup.
Even if you assume that there was absolutely no damage to the Wonhof car — which apparently there was — and therefore the Buzayan SUV never made any contact at all with the Wonhof car, that still would not excuse (in my mind) the Buzayans lying to the police about who the driver of the SUV was that day. Now, I don’t know that the Buzayans lied to the police. It’s possible that the mother was driving the SUV. But if the witnesses did report that the mother was wearing a headscarf and that the mother was in the passenger seat, then the Buzayans’ story is entirely incredible.
To believe the Buzayan’s claim — that in the afternoon the mother was not wearing her ħijāb (حجاب) in public and the daughter was, but then, a few hours later, when Ly Peng shows up, the mother had a ħijāb on inside her house, but Halema did not — is ridiculous. Only a person with extreme prejudice or no judgment whatsoever would believe such a story.
If you found your child’s clothes covered in ketchup, and the bottle of ketchup that was full when you left was not empty in the garbage, and he claimed that he didn’t have any idea what happened to the ketchup, would you believe him? If so, you would believe the ħijāb (حجاب) switcheroo coverup.
Even if you assume that there was absolutely no damage to the Wonhof car — which apparently there was — and therefore the Buzayan SUV never made any contact at all with the Wonhof car, that still would not excuse (in my mind) the Buzayans lying to the police about who the driver of the SUV was that day. Now, I don’t know that the Buzayans lied to the police. It’s possible that the mother was driving the SUV. But if the witnesses did report that the mother was wearing a headscarf and that the mother was in the passenger seat, then the Buzayans’ story is entirely incredible.
To believe the Buzayan’s claim — that in the afternoon the mother was not wearing her ħijāb (حجاب) in public and the daughter was, but then, a few hours later, when Ly Peng shows up, the mother had a ħijāb on inside her house, but Halema did not — is ridiculous. Only a person with extreme prejudice or no judgment whatsoever would believe such a story.
If you found your child’s clothes covered in ketchup, and the bottle of ketchup that was full when you left was not empty in the garbage, and he claimed that he didn’t have any idea what happened to the ketchup, would you believe him? If so, you would believe the ħijāb (حجاب) switcheroo coverup.
Even if you assume that there was absolutely no damage to the Wonhof car — which apparently there was — and therefore the Buzayan SUV never made any contact at all with the Wonhof car, that still would not excuse (in my mind) the Buzayans lying to the police about who the driver of the SUV was that day. Now, I don’t know that the Buzayans lied to the police. It’s possible that the mother was driving the SUV. But if the witnesses did report that the mother was wearing a headscarf and that the mother was in the passenger seat, then the Buzayans’ story is entirely incredible.
To believe the Buzayan’s claim — that in the afternoon the mother was not wearing her ħijāb (حجاب) in public and the daughter was, but then, a few hours later, when Ly Peng shows up, the mother had a ħijāb on inside her house, but Halema did not — is ridiculous. Only a person with extreme prejudice or no judgment whatsoever would believe such a story.
If you found your child’s clothes covered in ketchup, and the bottle of ketchup that was full when you left was not empty in the garbage, and he claimed that he didn’t have any idea what happened to the ketchup, would you believe him? If so, you would believe the ħijāb (حجاب) switcheroo coverup.
I just got home and looked at the transcript of the tapes…
Well here’s what Ly said:
“we have two witness (sic) that saw a female driving that blue Toyota HIghlander…”
Later he spoke into the mic: “The interesting thing I noticed about the mom is she wores (sic) a something (sic) over her had and the daughter doesn’t and the witnesses didn’t mention anything about that. I think they would have mentioned that to me. So, it’s probable the daughter was driving the car.”
So:
1. The witnesses never reported anything about the head scarf
2. Ly never asked them anything about the head scarf
3. Ly came to the conclusion about the head scarf based solely on conjecture about the witneses. And that was the sole decision that he based his arrest on.
The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving? Regardless of who was driving, if they had an accident it would have been a hit and run and a misdemeaner. Regardless of who was driving they would be liable for paying the damages.
And at the point of the first visit, they did not know that there were going to be charges filed against them. The Buzayans honestly believed that when they paid for the damage the deal was done. The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.
I just got home and looked at the transcript of the tapes…
Well here’s what Ly said:
“we have two witness (sic) that saw a female driving that blue Toyota HIghlander…”
Later he spoke into the mic: “The interesting thing I noticed about the mom is she wores (sic) a something (sic) over her had and the daughter doesn’t and the witnesses didn’t mention anything about that. I think they would have mentioned that to me. So, it’s probable the daughter was driving the car.”
So:
1. The witnesses never reported anything about the head scarf
2. Ly never asked them anything about the head scarf
3. Ly came to the conclusion about the head scarf based solely on conjecture about the witneses. And that was the sole decision that he based his arrest on.
The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving? Regardless of who was driving, if they had an accident it would have been a hit and run and a misdemeaner. Regardless of who was driving they would be liable for paying the damages.
And at the point of the first visit, they did not know that there were going to be charges filed against them. The Buzayans honestly believed that when they paid for the damage the deal was done. The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.
I just got home and looked at the transcript of the tapes…
Well here’s what Ly said:
“we have two witness (sic) that saw a female driving that blue Toyota HIghlander…”
Later he spoke into the mic: “The interesting thing I noticed about the mom is she wores (sic) a something (sic) over her had and the daughter doesn’t and the witnesses didn’t mention anything about that. I think they would have mentioned that to me. So, it’s probable the daughter was driving the car.”
So:
1. The witnesses never reported anything about the head scarf
2. Ly never asked them anything about the head scarf
3. Ly came to the conclusion about the head scarf based solely on conjecture about the witneses. And that was the sole decision that he based his arrest on.
The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving? Regardless of who was driving, if they had an accident it would have been a hit and run and a misdemeaner. Regardless of who was driving they would be liable for paying the damages.
And at the point of the first visit, they did not know that there were going to be charges filed against them. The Buzayans honestly believed that when they paid for the damage the deal was done. The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.
I just got home and looked at the transcript of the tapes…
Well here’s what Ly said:
“we have two witness (sic) that saw a female driving that blue Toyota HIghlander…”
Later he spoke into the mic: “The interesting thing I noticed about the mom is she wores (sic) a something (sic) over her had and the daughter doesn’t and the witnesses didn’t mention anything about that. I think they would have mentioned that to me. So, it’s probable the daughter was driving the car.”
So:
1. The witnesses never reported anything about the head scarf
2. Ly never asked them anything about the head scarf
3. Ly came to the conclusion about the head scarf based solely on conjecture about the witneses. And that was the sole decision that he based his arrest on.
The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving? Regardless of who was driving, if they had an accident it would have been a hit and run and a misdemeaner. Regardless of who was driving they would be liable for paying the damages.
And at the point of the first visit, they did not know that there were going to be charges filed against them. The Buzayans honestly believed that when they paid for the damage the deal was done. The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.
The bottom line is the Davis Police performed a very sloppy investigation and based on that the Judge tossed the case.If the facts were anywhere close to the “facts” described by the police, the case would not have been dropped.
Then the DA and the police were sore losers which led them to do things that will now cost them dearly in court.
I will always wonder why the deputy DA expended so much effort trying to defend the police officer. Was it the “facts” of the case or was it simply blind loyalty to a race of people?SAH
The bottom line is the Davis Police performed a very sloppy investigation and based on that the Judge tossed the case.If the facts were anywhere close to the “facts” described by the police, the case would not have been dropped.
Then the DA and the police were sore losers which led them to do things that will now cost them dearly in court.
I will always wonder why the deputy DA expended so much effort trying to defend the police officer. Was it the “facts” of the case or was it simply blind loyalty to a race of people?SAH
The bottom line is the Davis Police performed a very sloppy investigation and based on that the Judge tossed the case.If the facts were anywhere close to the “facts” described by the police, the case would not have been dropped.
Then the DA and the police were sore losers which led them to do things that will now cost them dearly in court.
I will always wonder why the deputy DA expended so much effort trying to defend the police officer. Was it the “facts” of the case or was it simply blind loyalty to a race of people?SAH
The bottom line is the Davis Police performed a very sloppy investigation and based on that the Judge tossed the case.If the facts were anywhere close to the “facts” described by the police, the case would not have been dropped.
Then the DA and the police were sore losers which led them to do things that will now cost them dearly in court.
I will always wonder why the deputy DA expended so much effort trying to defend the police officer. Was it the “facts” of the case or was it simply blind loyalty to a race of people?SAH
One thing missed by a lot of defenders of the police in this case is that the Judge in this case, Judge Warriner is a conservative Republican appointed by Deukmejian and he has a reputation for never ever dismissing cases. People familiar with the DA’s office said that the Buzayans would never have the case dismissed with Warriner as a judge. As it turns out, the Judge probably did the DA’s office and Ly a favor by not letting it go to trial.
One thing missed by a lot of defenders of the police in this case is that the Judge in this case, Judge Warriner is a conservative Republican appointed by Deukmejian and he has a reputation for never ever dismissing cases. People familiar with the DA’s office said that the Buzayans would never have the case dismissed with Warriner as a judge. As it turns out, the Judge probably did the DA’s office and Ly a favor by not letting it go to trial.
One thing missed by a lot of defenders of the police in this case is that the Judge in this case, Judge Warriner is a conservative Republican appointed by Deukmejian and he has a reputation for never ever dismissing cases. People familiar with the DA’s office said that the Buzayans would never have the case dismissed with Warriner as a judge. As it turns out, the Judge probably did the DA’s office and Ly a favor by not letting it go to trial.
One thing missed by a lot of defenders of the police in this case is that the Judge in this case, Judge Warriner is a conservative Republican appointed by Deukmejian and he has a reputation for never ever dismissing cases. People familiar with the DA’s office said that the Buzayans would never have the case dismissed with Warriner as a judge. As it turns out, the Judge probably did the DA’s office and Ly a favor by not letting it go to trial.
“The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving?”
As I said up front, I was not sure what the witnesses said (or did not say) about the headscarf. I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon, and not the mother, and it was the opposite when Peng entered the house. Now that truly sounds untrue.
“The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.”
Your transcript evidence is far stronger and more definitive than my memory is. However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.
“The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving?”
As I said up front, I was not sure what the witnesses said (or did not say) about the headscarf. I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon, and not the mother, and it was the opposite when Peng entered the house. Now that truly sounds untrue.
“The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.”
Your transcript evidence is far stronger and more definitive than my memory is. However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.
“The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving?”
As I said up front, I was not sure what the witnesses said (or did not say) about the headscarf. I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon, and not the mother, and it was the opposite when Peng entered the house. Now that truly sounds untrue.
“The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.”
Your transcript evidence is far stronger and more definitive than my memory is. However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.
“The lying charge doesn’t really pass the smell test here anyway. Why would they lie about who was driving?”
As I said up front, I was not sure what the witnesses said (or did not say) about the headscarf. I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon, and not the mother, and it was the opposite when Peng entered the house. Now that truly sounds untrue.
“The lying doesn’t pass the smell test to me. And there is no evidence of what you said on the transcripts.”
Your transcript evidence is far stronger and more definitive than my memory is. However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.
“I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon”
I have not seen any reference to this either in the media or the transcripts.
“However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.”
The KGO media report likewise mentioned that Ly never asked about the head scarf. I recall no claim that the daughter wore a scarf that afternoon.
“I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon”
I have not seen any reference to this either in the media or the transcripts.
“However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.”
The KGO media report likewise mentioned that Ly never asked about the head scarf. I recall no claim that the daughter wore a scarf that afternoon.
“I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon”
I have not seen any reference to this either in the media or the transcripts.
“However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.”
The KGO media report likewise mentioned that Ly never asked about the head scarf. I recall no claim that the daughter wore a scarf that afternoon.
“I do recall, however, that the Buzayans said that the daughter was wearing one in the afternoon”
I have not seen any reference to this either in the media or the transcripts.
“However, I don’t know if everything is on those transcripts.”
The KGO media report likewise mentioned that Ly never asked about the head scarf. I recall no claim that the daughter wore a scarf that afternoon.
I just looked at the arrest transcript and police station interview and at no time did Ly ask the daughter about a head scarf. I find that very telling if that was supposedly the key piece of information.
I just looked at the arrest transcript and police station interview and at no time did Ly ask the daughter about a head scarf. I find that very telling if that was supposedly the key piece of information.
I just looked at the arrest transcript and police station interview and at no time did Ly ask the daughter about a head scarf. I find that very telling if that was supposedly the key piece of information.
I just looked at the arrest transcript and police station interview and at no time did Ly ask the daughter about a head scarf. I find that very telling if that was supposedly the key piece of information.
Doug,
I found this information on Davis Wiki.
This explains why Halema had an incentive to lie, saying that she was not the driver:
“Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction).”
In other words, because she was a driver under the age of 18, her license was still under probate, and such an infraction would cause her sanctions as a minor that would not accrue to her mother as an adult.
This regards what the witnesses said about who was driving:
“On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
That is the evidence that I recalled. The witnesses said Halema was the driver. The Buzayans have claimed — I believe falsely — that the mother was driving.
“Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely – trying not to be obvious – look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.”
Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.
“The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.”
So not only did the witnesses see this accident, they were able to make a record of it.
“Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note.”
Beyond the testimony and photographs of the eyewitnesses, the victim, too, said there was damage.
Unless you are extremely prejudiced in favor of the Buzayans, there is no reason to not believe that there was not an accident in that parking lot, and that Halema was the driver of the SUV.
“She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota.”
This repeats the evidence. Halema was the driver, and the Buzayans lied and said it was the mother.
“The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car – boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema.”
This is where the mother lies and says she was the driver.
“She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space.”
That is true. The mother was not driving the SUV.
“Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day.”
Here is where Halema joins the lie. Most damning is the testimony that after Halema exited the driver’s seat, she stayed behind and examined the damage she caused, while here mother went into the store.
“Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have (sic) taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf – a hijab – at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf.”
That is more damning evidence. The driver, Halema, was not wearing a headscarf. The Buzayans lied and said the mother, who did have a hijab on, was the driver.
“Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver.”
I definitely believe that had the Buzayans not lied about who was driving their SUV, this whole case would have gone away quietly. But when you lie to police when they are investigating an auto accident, you clearly are going to make them dig deeper into this case. That is what they Buzayans did, and that is why the cops took this case so seriously.
Doug,
I found this information on Davis Wiki.
This explains why Halema had an incentive to lie, saying that she was not the driver:
“Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction).”
In other words, because she was a driver under the age of 18, her license was still under probate, and such an infraction would cause her sanctions as a minor that would not accrue to her mother as an adult.
This regards what the witnesses said about who was driving:
“On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
That is the evidence that I recalled. The witnesses said Halema was the driver. The Buzayans have claimed — I believe falsely — that the mother was driving.
“Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely – trying not to be obvious – look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.”
Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.
“The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.”
So not only did the witnesses see this accident, they were able to make a record of it.
“Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note.”
Beyond the testimony and photographs of the eyewitnesses, the victim, too, said there was damage.
Unless you are extremely prejudiced in favor of the Buzayans, there is no reason to not believe that there was not an accident in that parking lot, and that Halema was the driver of the SUV.
“She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota.”
This repeats the evidence. Halema was the driver, and the Buzayans lied and said it was the mother.
“The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car – boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema.”
This is where the mother lies and says she was the driver.
“She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space.”
That is true. The mother was not driving the SUV.
“Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day.”
Here is where Halema joins the lie. Most damning is the testimony that after Halema exited the driver’s seat, she stayed behind and examined the damage she caused, while here mother went into the store.
“Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have (sic) taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf – a hijab – at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf.”
That is more damning evidence. The driver, Halema, was not wearing a headscarf. The Buzayans lied and said the mother, who did have a hijab on, was the driver.
“Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver.”
I definitely believe that had the Buzayans not lied about who was driving their SUV, this whole case would have gone away quietly. But when you lie to police when they are investigating an auto accident, you clearly are going to make them dig deeper into this case. That is what they Buzayans did, and that is why the cops took this case so seriously.
Doug,
I found this information on Davis Wiki.
This explains why Halema had an incentive to lie, saying that she was not the driver:
“Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction).”
In other words, because she was a driver under the age of 18, her license was still under probate, and such an infraction would cause her sanctions as a minor that would not accrue to her mother as an adult.
This regards what the witnesses said about who was driving:
“On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
That is the evidence that I recalled. The witnesses said Halema was the driver. The Buzayans have claimed — I believe falsely — that the mother was driving.
“Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely – trying not to be obvious – look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.”
Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.
“The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.”
So not only did the witnesses see this accident, they were able to make a record of it.
“Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note.”
Beyond the testimony and photographs of the eyewitnesses, the victim, too, said there was damage.
Unless you are extremely prejudiced in favor of the Buzayans, there is no reason to not believe that there was not an accident in that parking lot, and that Halema was the driver of the SUV.
“She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota.”
This repeats the evidence. Halema was the driver, and the Buzayans lied and said it was the mother.
“The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car – boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema.”
This is where the mother lies and says she was the driver.
“She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space.”
That is true. The mother was not driving the SUV.
“Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day.”
Here is where Halema joins the lie. Most damning is the testimony that after Halema exited the driver’s seat, she stayed behind and examined the damage she caused, while here mother went into the store.
“Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have (sic) taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf – a hijab – at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf.”
That is more damning evidence. The driver, Halema, was not wearing a headscarf. The Buzayans lied and said the mother, who did have a hijab on, was the driver.
“Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver.”
I definitely believe that had the Buzayans not lied about who was driving their SUV, this whole case would have gone away quietly. But when you lie to police when they are investigating an auto accident, you clearly are going to make them dig deeper into this case. That is what they Buzayans did, and that is why the cops took this case so seriously.
Doug,
I found this information on Davis Wiki.
This explains why Halema had an incentive to lie, saying that she was not the driver:
“Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction).”
In other words, because she was a driver under the age of 18, her license was still under probate, and such an infraction would cause her sanctions as a minor that would not accrue to her mother as an adult.
This regards what the witnesses said about who was driving:
“On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
That is the evidence that I recalled. The witnesses said Halema was the driver. The Buzayans have claimed — I believe falsely — that the mother was driving.
“Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely – trying not to be obvious – look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.”
Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.
“The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.”
So not only did the witnesses see this accident, they were able to make a record of it.
“Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note.”
Beyond the testimony and photographs of the eyewitnesses, the victim, too, said there was damage.
Unless you are extremely prejudiced in favor of the Buzayans, there is no reason to not believe that there was not an accident in that parking lot, and that Halema was the driver of the SUV.
“She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota.”
This repeats the evidence. Halema was the driver, and the Buzayans lied and said it was the mother.
“The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car – boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema.”
This is where the mother lies and says she was the driver.
“She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space.”
That is true. The mother was not driving the SUV.
“Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day.”
Here is where Halema joins the lie. Most damning is the testimony that after Halema exited the driver’s seat, she stayed behind and examined the damage she caused, while here mother went into the store.
“Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have (sic) taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf – a hijab – at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf.”
That is more damning evidence. The driver, Halema, was not wearing a headscarf. The Buzayans lied and said the mother, who did have a hijab on, was the driver.
“Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver.”
I definitely believe that had the Buzayans not lied about who was driving their SUV, this whole case would have gone away quietly. But when you lie to police when they are investigating an auto accident, you clearly are going to make them dig deeper into this case. That is what they Buzayans did, and that is why the cops took this case so seriously.
Rich:
I am aware of that account, but there are several things that are problematic about it.
First: “They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
If this were the witness description, then Ly’s behavior at the June 7th interview did not match that. He would have immediately asked for Halema. But he didn’t. He only came to the conclusion that Halema was driving at the very end of the first visit based solely on the head scarf.
This emerged at the June 13th police interview, but it was at odds with the story that Ly was giving at the June 7th visit to the house. It was until page 10 of the transcript that he even asked for the daughter. If that was the description of the driver, don’t you think the first person he would have asked is whether they had a daughter who might have been driving the car? But he doesn’t. That’s very odd.
This is a smoking gun to me—if that was the witnesses’ description as Ly later claimed in the June 13th interview, he acted as though it were not on June 7th.
Second: Only one of the two witnesses correctly identified Halema in the line up, the other selected someone else. This is conveniently left out of the description by the DA’s office.
Third: “”The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.” Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.”
However, the damage does not match–there is a long thin scratch on the Buzayan car and a dent in the Wonhof vehicle. I do not see how a scratch could cause a dent. The Buzayan vehicle is up high, and the damage would be above Wonhof’s car. And finally a naked eye look at the paint does not seem to match the Buzayan color. I understand about the paid expert, but my non-expert opinion casts serious doubt on this account.
Maybe I can get a copy of the photos and put them up to show you–the damage just doesn’t match.
Rich:
I am aware of that account, but there are several things that are problematic about it.
First: “They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
If this were the witness description, then Ly’s behavior at the June 7th interview did not match that. He would have immediately asked for Halema. But he didn’t. He only came to the conclusion that Halema was driving at the very end of the first visit based solely on the head scarf.
This emerged at the June 13th police interview, but it was at odds with the story that Ly was giving at the June 7th visit to the house. It was until page 10 of the transcript that he even asked for the daughter. If that was the description of the driver, don’t you think the first person he would have asked is whether they had a daughter who might have been driving the car? But he doesn’t. That’s very odd.
This is a smoking gun to me—if that was the witnesses’ description as Ly later claimed in the June 13th interview, he acted as though it were not on June 7th.
Second: Only one of the two witnesses correctly identified Halema in the line up, the other selected someone else. This is conveniently left out of the description by the DA’s office.
Third: “”The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.” Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.”
However, the damage does not match–there is a long thin scratch on the Buzayan car and a dent in the Wonhof vehicle. I do not see how a scratch could cause a dent. The Buzayan vehicle is up high, and the damage would be above Wonhof’s car. And finally a naked eye look at the paint does not seem to match the Buzayan color. I understand about the paid expert, but my non-expert opinion casts serious doubt on this account.
Maybe I can get a copy of the photos and put them up to show you–the damage just doesn’t match.
Rich:
I am aware of that account, but there are several things that are problematic about it.
First: “They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
If this were the witness description, then Ly’s behavior at the June 7th interview did not match that. He would have immediately asked for Halema. But he didn’t. He only came to the conclusion that Halema was driving at the very end of the first visit based solely on the head scarf.
This emerged at the June 13th police interview, but it was at odds with the story that Ly was giving at the June 7th visit to the house. It was until page 10 of the transcript that he even asked for the daughter. If that was the description of the driver, don’t you think the first person he would have asked is whether they had a daughter who might have been driving the car? But he doesn’t. That’s very odd.
This is a smoking gun to me—if that was the witnesses’ description as Ly later claimed in the June 13th interview, he acted as though it were not on June 7th.
Second: Only one of the two witnesses correctly identified Halema in the line up, the other selected someone else. This is conveniently left out of the description by the DA’s office.
Third: “”The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.” Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.”
However, the damage does not match–there is a long thin scratch on the Buzayan car and a dent in the Wonhof vehicle. I do not see how a scratch could cause a dent. The Buzayan vehicle is up high, and the damage would be above Wonhof’s car. And finally a naked eye look at the paint does not seem to match the Buzayan color. I understand about the paid expert, but my non-expert opinion casts serious doubt on this account.
Maybe I can get a copy of the photos and put them up to show you–the damage just doesn’t match.
Rich:
I am aware of that account, but there are several things that are problematic about it.
First: “They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone.”
If this were the witness description, then Ly’s behavior at the June 7th interview did not match that. He would have immediately asked for Halema. But he didn’t. He only came to the conclusion that Halema was driving at the very end of the first visit based solely on the head scarf.
This emerged at the June 13th police interview, but it was at odds with the story that Ly was giving at the June 7th visit to the house. It was until page 10 of the transcript that he even asked for the daughter. If that was the description of the driver, don’t you think the first person he would have asked is whether they had a daughter who might have been driving the car? But he doesn’t. That’s very odd.
This is a smoking gun to me—if that was the witnesses’ description as Ly later claimed in the June 13th interview, he acted as though it were not on June 7th.
Second: Only one of the two witnesses correctly identified Halema in the line up, the other selected someone else. This is conveniently left out of the description by the DA’s office.
Third: “”The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers.” Regardless of what the paid “experts” say about the damage to the SUV and the Wonhof car, the eyewitnesses said explicitly that there was damage and that the driver, Halema, took a look at the damage they believed that she caused. Unlike the paid “experts” you refer to so often, the eyewitnesses have absolutely no reason or incentive to lie.”
However, the damage does not match–there is a long thin scratch on the Buzayan car and a dent in the Wonhof vehicle. I do not see how a scratch could cause a dent. The Buzayan vehicle is up high, and the damage would be above Wonhof’s car. And finally a naked eye look at the paint does not seem to match the Buzayan color. I understand about the paid expert, but my non-expert opinion casts serious doubt on this account.
Maybe I can get a copy of the photos and put them up to show you–the damage just doesn’t match.
A couple of other things about this case that are not sitting well with me:
First, there is no tape of the witnesses talking to Ly
Second, the defense was never actually able to locate the witneses and talk to them.
Third, the supposed photo that the witness took by cell phone was lost by the police
A couple of other things about this case that are not sitting well with me:
First, there is no tape of the witnesses talking to Ly
Second, the defense was never actually able to locate the witneses and talk to them.
Third, the supposed photo that the witness took by cell phone was lost by the police
A couple of other things about this case that are not sitting well with me:
First, there is no tape of the witnesses talking to Ly
Second, the defense was never actually able to locate the witneses and talk to them.
Third, the supposed photo that the witness took by cell phone was lost by the police
A couple of other things about this case that are not sitting well with me:
First, there is no tape of the witnesses talking to Ly
Second, the defense was never actually able to locate the witneses and talk to them.
Third, the supposed photo that the witness took by cell phone was lost by the police