Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Unbelievable verdict. He was DWI, but not responsible for hitting and killing her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm not saying this is the case here but i think you are missing the fact that being drunk doesn't equate to causing the drunk driving accident always. in many cases its not cause and effect as much as pure coincidence. Again - not saying it here but reiterating the concept for its own sake. Exactly. I always thought that that was the way it was, but it isn't I found out with this verdict. I actually used to think it was unfair - what we all seem to be thinking here - that if you're driving drunk you are automatically the cause the accident. Was the girl in the road when she was hit? A friend's sister is an attorney who has handled DUI cases before and said if someone is in the road when they get hit, it makes it so much more difficult on the prosecution. This one sounds like stupidity from both parties led to her death. That's what a lot of it seemed to come down to. The Amherst police investigation had her on the side of the road - in the bike lane. The accident reconstruction expert the defense brought in had her on the road. It seemed like the jury found the 2nd one more believable. And, yes I do think it was stupidity from both parties. Something like 65/35 Corisanti/Rice. Mr. McButterpants said you can't blame the girl to me. Really? She has 2 near misses in the five minutes before she finally gets hit, and she doesn't share some of the blame? She's zig zagging down the road (perhaps tied in her wish to die in spectacular fashion) in dark clothes at night, crouched down, and she doesn't have any blame in this? I came very close to hitting somebody on Delaware Ave. this winter. Downtown - it's late early like 5 PM. It's pouring. And, to my shock, I nearly hit somebody I didn't see until the last second. Some ahole all in black walking right down the street almost in the middle, but on my side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article881178.ece Nixon said he had doubts about the testimony of Mark Rowland, the Getzville motorist who testified about what he saw moments before Corasanti's car struck Rice. Prosecutors called his testimony very damaging to Corasanti. Rowland testified, for example, that Rice was highly visible as she skated along the side of the road. Rowland said he saw Corasanti's approaching car partly in the bike lane where she was riding her longboard. Prosecutor James F. Bargnesi called Rowland a "phenomenal" witness. Nixon was not so impressed. Rowland had previously testified in front of a grand jury, which indicted Corasanti on the five felony charges. "His grand jury testimony didn't quite jibe with what he said on the stand to us," Nixon said. How did trial jurors react to that? "It did make a difference," Nixon said. --- What's more, the defense's accident-reconstruction expert raised reasonable doubt about where Rice was on Heim Road when Corasanti's BMW struck her. More of her longboard was on the road than the prosecution contended, that expert testified. David Liske, a principal associate at Liske Forensic Professionals of Fonthill, Ont., testified Amherst police were "absolutely wrong" in how they reconstructed the fatal incident. Liske testified that Corasanti was traveling 39.9 mph on Heim Road in Amherst when his BMW struck Rice. His testimony cast doubt on the Amherst Police Department's calculation that Corasanti was driving 46 to 52 mph in a 35 mph zone when he fatally struck Rice. "I thought he was more professional," Nixon said of Liske. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Exactly. I always thought that that was the way it was, but it isn't I found out with this verdict. I actually used to think it was unfair - what we all seem to be thinking here - that if you're driving drunk you are automatically the cause the accident. That's what a lot of it seemed to come down to. The Amherst police investigation had her on the side of the road - in the bike lane. The accident reconstruction expert the defense brought in had her on the road. It seemed like the jury found the 2nd one more believable. And, yes I do think it was stupidity from both parties. Something like 65/35 Corisanti/Rice. Mr. McButterpants said you can't blame the girl to me. Really? She has 2 near misses in the five minutes before she finally gets hit, and she doesn't share some of the blame? She's zig zagging down the road (perhaps tied in her wish to die in spectacular fashion) in dark clothes at night, crouched down, and she doesn't have any blame in this? I came very close to hitting somebody on Delaware Ave. this winter. Downtown - it's late early like 5 PM. It's pouring. And, to my shock, I nearly hit somebody I didn't see until the last second. Some ahole all in black walking right down the street almost in the middle, but on my side! In this case alcohol may have been the difference between the close calls and the actual accident. It might also have been a variety of other factors. It's easy to say he's drunk he's done for.... But apparently these jurors didn't see it as causation. The most recent place I remember this board discussing a similar issue was stallworth hitting the guy that ran in front of him. Would a sober person end in the same fate driving that car? Sometimes it's really hard to judge. All that said - calls to the attorney, cleaning the car etc... Make it very hard to believe he had no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 In this case alcohol may have been the difference between the close calls and the actual accident. It might also have been a variety of other factors. It's easy to say he's drunk he's done for.... But apparently these jurors didn't see it as causation. The most recent place I remember this board discussing a similar issue was stallworth hitting the guy that ran in front of him. Would a sober person end in the same fate driving that car? Sometimes it's really hard to judge. All that said - calls to the attorney, cleaning the car etc... Make it very hard to believe he had no idea I was thinking about Stallworth with this, too. And, I believe Jim Leyritz didn't get convicted because the one who got killed was also drunk and more at fault. I do think you are right in that there is almost no way he had no idea after the fact. He had way too much concern about it - wife driving off to find out what happened, if didn't think it at all that it was a human being. Now for the cause of the action, here is the prosecution star witness Mark Rowland and his wife, Jamie LaPierre, told the court that they were driving on Heim Road and saw Alexandria Rice cross the street about 20 feet in front of their car. 20 feet? Why am I the only one that I have seen who thinks that this is a girl flirting with danger? Nobody in the paper said that that is a close call. 20 feet sounds pretty far. But, then when you think that won't even get you to the 7 yard line, could you imagine how close of a call that really was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Dr. Corisanti was my GI, and a really great doctor. Made you feel real comfortable when you aren't usually going to. I have never heard anybody who knows him say anything bad about him. He may be a great doctor, but this is now his 2nd alcohol-related offense, and he's rumored to be a womanizer. One of the things that irritates me is that this guy is a doctor - he's supposed to heal people, and assist those who are in need of medical care. He hits this girl, who's thrown nearly 50 yards by the impact (yes, Doc, you're very credible when you testify under oath that you didn't know you hit her ), and he drives off? I guess when there's no co-pay involved, he doesn't give a ****. Daniels did say that he was a doctor "24/7", though... Even if you believe the "more professional" (per the dumbass jury foreman) defense expert, Corasanti was travelling nearly 5 mph over the speed limit, around a corner, while texting, on a dimly lit road at night when he hit this girl. Oh yeah, he was drunk too. Can someone please explain to me how these half-wits on the jury acquitted Corasanti of the "leaving the scene" charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Because they believed the defense that with his type of BMW it is almost soundproof, esp. when listening to music, etc. and that it is like Nascar car's that crumple easily to absord the energy...........I'm not saying that I believe it. That's where I have the most problem believing the defense. Well, that and the PA's testimony that she deleted his texts without looking at them, so that she could get to texts having to do with work........So, texts from your boss are not work related?...........Is this where the womanizing rumor is coming from? It seems like it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Because they believed the defense that with his type of BMW it is almost soundproof, esp. when listening to music, etc. and that it is like Nascar car's that crumple easily to absord the energy...........I'm not saying that I believe it. That's where I have the most problem believing the defense. Well, that and the PA's testimony that she deleted his texts without looking at them, so that she could get to texts having to do with work........So, texts from your boss are not work related?...........Is this where the womanizing rumor is coming from? It seems like it would be. Please, I understand that you have a relationship with the man and I'm happy that he made you feel comfortable, but how do you explain his actions after he did not know that he had hit someone? I know that the first thing I did as a drunk driver was clean up my car and call my lawyer. The jury believed that there was a possibility that the car's construction might have kept the man from 'hearing' the impact. Did the experts also explain how he didn't feel the impact? Did they explain away his strange actions following the killing? The jury focused on one issue and ignored the rest. Sad. Tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Because they believed the defense that with his type of BMW it is almost soundproof, esp. when listening to music, etc. and that it is like Nascar car's that crumple easily to absord the energy...........I'm not saying that I believe it. That's where I have the most problem believing the defense. Well, that and the PA's testimony that she deleted his texts without looking at them, so that she could get to texts having to do with work........So, texts from your boss are not work related?...........Is this where the womanizing rumor is coming from? It seems like it would be. I've been in higher end BMWs, and I never noticed this sort of soundproofing. If the car was that soundproof, wouldn't it be almost dangerous, in that the driver/passengers couldn't hear the sirens of emergency vehicles? Also, the jury would have to be complete idiots to believe that he could not have felt the impact when he struck Rice -- she was thrown 50 yards, fer chrissakes! I'm pretty sure that these dolt jurors would've believed Skooby as an expert witness, what with him being a BMW owner and all. As far as the womanizing, he was texting a female co-worker late on a Saturday night. I run my own business, and I don't do that. The womanizing rumor comes from someone I know very well who worked with Corasanti. Edited June 2, 2012 by bills44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Please, I understand that you have a relationship with the man and I'm happy that he made you feel comfortable, but how do you explain his actions after he did not know that he had hit someone? I know that the first thing I did as a drunk driver was clean up my car and call my lawyer. The jury believed that there was a possibility that the car's construction might have kept the man from 'hearing' the impact. Did the experts also explain how he didn't feel the impact? Did they explain away his strange actions following the killing? The jury focused on one issue and ignored the rest. Sad. Tragic. How many different ways do I have to say that I don't believe the story once he hit her? Well, he was texting a female co-worker late on a Saturday night. I run my own business, and I don't do that. The womanizing rumor comes from someone I know very well who worked with Corasanti. I run my own business and I do do that. Mostly email to my secretary.........He also texted with his secretary and she said it was about arranging for an upcoming office party or something like that..........What I don't believe is that the PA deleted those texts she got without reading them. That makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I run my own business and I do do that. Mostly email to my secretary.........He also texted with his secretary and she said it was about arranging for an upcoming office party or something like that..........What I don't believe is that the PA deleted those texts she got without reading them. That makes zero sense. Maybe it's just me, but I do feel that there's a big difference between e-mail and text messaging. Text messaging just seems far more informal and buddy/buddy to me than e-mail. I do wonder what would have happened if Corasanti's kid had been hit and killed by an "Average Joe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Maybe it's just me, but I do feel that there's a big difference between e-mail and text messaging. Text messaging just seems far more informal and buddy/buddy to me than e-mail. I do wonder what would have happened if Corasanti's kid had been hit and killed by an "Average Joe". Yeah, I would only text if it was something I needed an answer to RIGHT NOW. Since she "deleted them without looking at them" they must not have been with that much urgency. I think now that he probably deleted his texts more to not get busted by his wife than to cover up evidence. By just doing a simple search, I think he had something going on with the PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Maybe it's just me, but I do feel that there's a big difference between e-mail and text messaging. Text messaging just seems far more informal and buddy/buddy to me than e-mail. I do wonder what would have happened if Corasanti's kid had been hit and killed by an "Average Joe". Depends on the person. I text a lot. It's hard to extrapolate like that as how people use tech can vary greatly based on everything from tech background to relationship history to anything. Odds are it was something sketchy but email vs text isn't always as big a distinction as you imply It is friendlier but an an office that's more open and familial it's not odd. Maybe they went paintballing with mularkey whereas you like to keep more lines drawn. Edited June 2, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 Because they believed the defense that with his type of BMW it is almost soundproof, esp. when listening to music, etc. and that it is like Nascar car's that crumple easily to absord the energy...........I'm not saying that I believe it. That's where I have the most problem believing the defense. Well, that and the PA's testimony that she deleted his texts without looking at them, so that she could get to texts having to do with work........So, texts from your boss are not work related?...........Is this where the womanizing rumor is coming from? It seems like it would be. It took out his right headlight. He could not notice that? Texting and driving are OK if it's work related? Even if you kill someone? Not sure why you are defending this killer. Call a cab, what 20 bucks? Drink all you want, text in the back seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 It took out his right headlight. He could not notice that? Texting and driving are OK if it's work related? Even if you kill someone? Not sure why you are defending this killer. Call a cab, what 20 bucks? Drink all you want, text in the back seat. Do you guys not know how to read? I said I don't believe it either. You quoted it. I believe she contributed greatly to the accident, and I don't think he saw her. She crossed 20 feet in front of the other guy. She was an accident waiting to happen.....This winter, I was crossing the street at a stop sign. It's at a place you normally wouldn't see somebody cross at the time I was.....A car was coming up, and really a lot of cars blow the stop sign off, but the way the car acted, I thought he was going to do that, but saw me and then stopped (he was going fast, and then stopped pretty suddenly). So, I went to cross in front of him, and he accelerates. I said WTF!!! He slams on the brakes, and yells I can't even see you! (I was wearing dark clothes). I thought he was ahole until I drove my car at the same place and the way the lighting is I could see how he couldn't see me. But, I do think he knew he hit somebody and he also knew how much he had drank, so he kept going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 On another note, I read somewhere that advocates for the blind are sorta up in arms about the new hydrid cars... Seems they run very silent and can cause ssues at intersections for a blind person who depends on some sound of the motor... Hmmmm, isn't a silent motor vehicle considered "progress." Can't wait for this sh*tstorm to hit the courts in some capacity! Cars are pretty sound damping... The whole bs that Harley riders spew about "loud pipes" just doesn't hold water any more... What is the answer? Make more noise pollution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) People need to get over it. Have heartburn? Then have it with the judicial system. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." Obviously, the jury didn't feel he was PROVEN guility... Now most want to arm chair QB... Question the system, not the defendant or victim. The system is what it is... Better for this guy and a million others to go free than have one wrongly accused person rot in jail. Sure this verdict is a hard pill to swallow... Both deserve to be dead. This is the basis for how our system is built. We don't live in Salem, MA anymore. I feel sorry for the victim and her family. The jury decided that her "death wish" was more the cause in the accident, big deal... It is his lucky day sadly... You think drunks when they hit the road actually rationalize about rolling the dice? No... They just hit the road like it or not. They both had no right to be on road in the condition they were in. He got his "get out of jail" card. Even if he hits the road drunk tonight and smears my family off the face of earth... I can't resent the system. Edited June 2, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 Do you guys not know how to read? I said I don't believe it either. You quoted it. I believe she contributed greatly to the accident, and I don't think he saw her. She crossed 20 feet in front of the other guy. She was an accident waiting to happen.....This winter, I was crossing the street at a stop sign. It's at a place you normally wouldn't see somebody cross at the time I was.....A car was coming up, and really a lot of cars blow the stop sign off, but the way the car acted, I thought he was going to do that, but saw me and then stopped (he was going fast, and then stopped pretty suddenly). So, I went to cross in front of him, and he accelerates. I said WTF!!! He slams on the brakes, and yells I can't even see you! (I was wearing dark clothes). I thought he was ahole until I drove my car at the same place and the way the lighting is I could see how he couldn't see me. But, I do think he knew he hit somebody and he also knew how much he had drank, so he kept going. [Last sentence]I am glad you acknowledge that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I've said it several times. That's the part that I don't buy. I also think that he put himself in a horrible position, and she was an accident waiting to happen........One that could have happened if he hadn't had a drink at all.......But, because he had been drinking, and was drunk, he kept going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Must read for anybody interested in this case. A juror writes a 6 page pdf file explaining how he came to his decisions. Mr. McButterpants told me I can't blame the girl at all. This juror was told the law, and he did think she had some blame.........I said I'm the only one who seems to be questioning the 20 feet she cut in front of the star witness. Funny how the News can keep saying 20 feet because that doesn't sound so bad. But, if you say 7 yards as I keep doing, you find out in there that the star witness actually got really pissed at her he said in his grand jury testimony. Two times she almost gets hit. Two times she never makes eye contact. She never even replies to the guy who stopped and asked if she's OK after he almost hits her. Just keeps on going...........Yeah, she deserves none of the blame. Like, me this juror has the most problem with Corasanti leaving the scene. He would like the law re-written and called Alix's Law Compelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts