VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 If your friend gets hit by a car, what would you be paying the most attention to- your friend's condition, or the car. If you are not 100% paying attention to something, then you could end up being wrong without intending to lie about it. Then say "I didn't see what happened exactly." Don't make stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureBillsGM Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Why is her version of the events automatically the least credible of the witnesses? I'm sure every eyewitnesses he interviewed saw something different. Why did you leave this part of the article out? While Lynch, 22, has not spoken directly to police about the incident, The Buffalo News learned Friday that he did talk to a Bills official — by text message — on the day it happened. “More than 10” text messages were exchanged between Lynch and Chris Clark, the Bills director of security, hours after the 3:30 a. m. hit-and-run accident, law enforcement officials said. Authorities said Buffalo police and Frank Clark’s office obtained a court order to look at the text messages earlier this week. “I am aware of the text messages, and from my understanding, there is nothing improper about any of them,” said Paul J. Cambria, an attorney who represents Chris Clark and other Bills officials. “My understanding is there was nothing derogatory said in any of the messages by Marshawn or Chris Clark.” Law enforcement officials said the text-messaging between Chris Clark and the running back began at least six hours after the accident. The officials said Buffalo police were upset to learn that, while refusing to talk to police, Lynch was talking to a team official about his situation. Authorities said some of the text messages dealt with Lynch’s need to speak with an attorney and the Bills security chief advising him on his legal right to refuse to speak to anyone about the incident. Chris Clark is a former top official of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office. So if Lynch didn't know he hit her why was he texting this guy for legal advice after the accident? I don't get this. This says that he was texting a team official at least 6 hours after the incident. Didn't the cops come and impound his car? By this point he knew he was in trouble and the first thing I did when the cops showed up to impound my car is to seek legal advice. This does not mean he knew he hit someone. Before six hours the cops had already impounded his car from what I understand. He may not have know he did anything until the five zero showed up. I am not defending him as I am fairly indifferent to this situation but I don't see the logic of how this means he knew he hit her at the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Isn't it a bit unlikely that a person who was just struck by a vehicle (and is lying on the ground) supposedly had the awareness to watch the subsequent actions of said vehicle? Certainly the statements of "uninvolved" witnesses would appear to be more credible. I'd imagine the victim was simply trying to figure out whether or not she had been beached permanently, and not thinking about taking down a license plate number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Isn't it a bit unlikely that a person who was just struck by a vehicle (and is lying on the ground) supposedly had the awareness to watch the subsequent actions of said vehicle? Certainly the statements of "uninvolved" witnesses would appear to be more credible. I'd imagine the victim was simply trying to figure out whether or not she had been beached permanently, and not thinking about taking down a license plate number. There's no reason to trash the victim because of conflicting eyewitnesses, especially when all the witnesses agree that Lynch's vehicle struck her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Regardless if he stopped or not she will still win the civil lawsuit, most likely through a settlement. You still never answered my question of why if Lynch didnt know he hit the woman why was he texting the Bills head of security and why he didn't answer the door when the police were pounding on his door and towing away his 100K SUV. Maybe... just maybe... he was texting the bills because the police were showing up at his house? I doubt i would answer if the police showed up and started pounding on my door. I would call my lawyer first. She will get no punitive damages, and probably no medical damages since she is canadian and has free health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Then say "I didn't see what happened exactly." Don't make stuff up. I am saying it isn't necessarily made up- if you are paying attention to two things, then your perception of one probably becomes skewed. Particularly in such an emotional event- it happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Well, we now know there will be no punitive damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Maybe... just maybe... he was texting the bills because the police were showing up at his house? I doubt i would answer if the police showed up and started pounding on my door. I would call my lawyer first. She will get no punitive damages, and probably no medical damages since she is canadian and has free health care. I wouldn't answer the door if I had something to hide, makes me think that even if Lynch didn't know he hit this woman he may have been hiding other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Well, we now know there will be no punitive damages. It won't even reach a courtroom to get that far, Lynch will just cut a check and it will be done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 I am saying it isn't necessarily made up- if you are paying attention to two things, then your perception of one probably becomes skewed. Particularly in such an emotional event- it happens all the time. In that case you give your account and then say "but I'm not exactly sure what happened." And again, there's a difference between slowing-down and stopping. If other witnesses said the car never slowed down period, much less never stopped, you're making it up. Just like she's making it up that she needs multiple doctors to care for her injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 In that case you give your account and then say "but I'm not exactly sure what happened." And again, there's a difference between slowing-down and stopping. If other witnesses said the car never slowed down period, much less never stopped, you're making it up. Just like she's making it up that she needs multiple doctors to care for her injuries. What if the other witnesses are Lynch apologists like yourself who have spent the whole night doing Jagerbombs and only care about seeing Lynch play on sundays? Are they reliable? By the way wasn't Steve Johnson sitting shotgun? Wouldn't that give him a front row seat for the accident? I guess he didn't notice either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 In that case you give your account and then say "but I'm not exactly sure what happened." And again, there's a difference between slowing-down and stopping. If other witnesses said the car never slowed down period, much less never stopped, you're making it up. Just like she's making it up that she needs multiple doctors to care for her injuries. In this case you don't even know that you don't know. Thats why there is a judge- you get many different accounts from people who saw things differently and try to reconstruct the event to see what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 In this case you don't even know that you don't know. Thats why there is a judge- you get many different accounts from people who saw things differently and try to reconstruct the event to see what really happened. It would be interesting to see all these witnesses, including the victim, testify in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 How do you know her version is not the truth? Perhaps the witness' account is untrue. How credible is a witness that has been drinking for 6 hours on Chippewa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 It would be interesting to see all these witnesses, including the victim, testify in court. ah, its pretty typical though- about as interesting as any other case. Hopefully everything works out for the girl that got hit, and there is no permanent damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 How do you know her version is not the truth? Perhaps the witness' account is untrue. How credible is a witness that has been drinking for 6 hours on Chippewa? Exacty, using either eyewitnesses to prove or refute this case is ineffective. The only thing that we know for sure is that Lynch was driving and he drove away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Exacty, using either eyewitnesses to prove or refute this case is ineffective. The only thing that we know for sure is that Lynch was driving and he drove away. Yep, that about sums-up your viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Yep, that about sums-up your viewpoint. You dispute that Lynch was driving still? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 How do you know her version is not the truth? Perhaps the witness' account is untrue. How credible is a witness that has been drinking for 6 hours on Chippewa? She may be telling the truth, but her testimony has to be looked upon as heavily biased. The witnesses and security tapes are much more credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Lynch has a crappy agent. Drew Rosenhaus would have had this brushed under the carpet long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts