off topic Corasanti Verdict

[Weave]

As a mechanical engineer I'd love to have heard that expert testimony. There is an absolute ton of engineering that goes into automobiles to deaden sound and vibration. I used to work in a facitity that did noise and vibrational analysis in the auto industry. I'm not saying that it is impossible for Corasanti to have not heard the collision, but I am skeptical, and would be very interested in hearing that experts' testimony.

 

And I'd bet that the defense team worked to keep analytical types off of that jury.

[dEnnis the Menace]

As a mechanical engineer I'd love to have heard that expert testimony. There is an absolute ton of engineering that goes into automobiles to deaden sound and vibration. I used to work in a facitity that did noise and vibrational analysis in the auto industry. I'm not saying that it is impossible for Corasanti to have not heard the collision, but I am skeptical, and would be very interested in hearing that experts' testimony.

 

And I'd bet that the defense team worked to keep analytical types off of that jury.

 

as a Mech E myself, I too would've loved to hear that testimony.

[That Aud Smell]

I'm not saying that it is impossible for Corasanti to have not heard the been aware of a significant collision

 

how about as modified?

[apuszczalowski]

Just to play devils advocate here, I don't think they ever denied that he was aware that he hit something, what they did say was that he wasn't aware that he hit a person. Running over an animal like a groundhog is something that you will feel in any vehicle, but he didn't run the girl over (IIRC), he hit her and she bounced off the car, its possible that the soundproofing and engineering of the BMW made it seem like he hit something smaller, like a dog.

 

And its also quite possible that she did at the last minute swerve into the car, I thought I had heard she was listening to an MP3 player when hit so its possible she didn't know a car was coming up. I always get a little nervous when driving close past someone traveling on the side of the road because you never know if that person might make a sudden move in front of you, there isn't always time to move even when sober.

 

Now none of what I said is reason enough in my opinion to hit someone and leave the scene while you are intoxicated. Even if he didn't realise he hit a person who may have stepped out infront of the car, he was still driving drunk and that should have been enough to send him to jail for even just a little while.

 

The defence attorney did a great job of convincing the jury that even a very slight chance of doubt (like the fact that there was even a remote chance the blood vile used for the test could have been contaminated) should let him walk. After hearing the jury member speak about why they let him go, its convinced me that these jury members were not the sharpest tools in the shed and the defence played on that while the prosecution thought they had enough to put him away without having to work too hard

[shrader]

As a mechanical engineer I'd love to have heard that expert testimony. There is an absolute ton of engineering that goes into automobiles to deaden sound and vibration. I used to work in a facitity that did noise and vibrational analysis in the auto industry. I'm not saying that it is impossible for Corasanti to have not heard the collision, but I am skeptical, and would be very interested in hearing that experts' testimony.

 

And I'd bet that the defense team worked to keep analytical types off of that jury.

 

But if you're drunk and not fully aware, you may not hear it. So there's another nice little escape clause built into this whole situation.

[tom webster]

To your first point, only a small number of people could be in the courtroom, but as more details come out via the statements of the jury foreman, etc. it is actually MORE unbelievable that they did not find this man guilty of any of the major charges.

Second, whether or not the victim veered in front of his vehicle, the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated IS a crime in itself. It slows reaction time, so if someone did veer out from the side of the road, the intoxicated driver may not be able to react quickly enough to avoid them.

Third, the testimony I've read about so far all seems to indicate that the doctor did not "hear" anything and thus did not know he struck anyone/thing. I drove BMWs for many years and although they are very quiet cars, they are not soundproof. Any noise that could be heard by people in their living rooms watching TV could certainly be heard inside the car. Moreover, the impact must have been felt through the steering wheel and the structure of the car in general. This was a two-ton vehicle moving at 40-50 miles per hour striking a human being weighing 140 pounds. You will definitely feel that hit IF you are sober and have your wits about you. (As an aside, I currently drive a Ford F150 pickup truck. Last weekend I was driving home from Pennsylvania. A chipmunk ran out from the side of the road - I tried to avoid hitting him, but that would have made me cross over into the oncoming lane of traffic. So, unfortunately I ran over the poor creature. I FELT the hit (and frankly, it made me queasy for a while).

Lastly, Dr. Corasanti's actions after the incident are exactly what one would do if they wanted to avoid the drunk driving charge. He returned home an pulled his car into the garage out of sight. Upon inspecting the vehicle and finding major damage, including what I'm sure the doctor recognized as tissue from a living being, he did not call the police or return to the scene of the accident. His wife went (or was sent) to the scene to ascertain if the strike was an animal or a person. Upon finding out it was a person, she returned home and told the doctor, who then called his friend (who also happened to be a lawyer). I'm sure the doctor was advised to refuse a Breathalyzer test (which he did). Only when a court order was obtained did he give a blood sample to be tested for ethyl alcohol level - FIVE HOURS after the incident.

As for the jury's actions in this case, while true that the public wasn't there and didn't hear the evidence, I must say this. I was a juror on a single count criminal case about ten years ago. We heard just two days of testimony, much of it conflicting. Once charged by the judge, we still took nearly five hours to arrive at a unanimous decision. The fact that this jury deliberated only 13 hours tells me that they had already pretty much made up their minds to acquit before entering the jury room. As the evidence seemed to be so fully against the doctor's story, one HAS to wonder about the jurors state of mind and ability to understand some basic principles. They seemed to be swayed by the defense's "expert" witnesses more than the eyewitness testimony. I say that for the price paid to these "experts", they ought to have been able to spin a good yarn, which they apparently did.

I must say here that I am in the health care field, and indeed worked in the pathology field for many years. Forensic medicine was a major interest to me back then, and still is (a bit) today. I can only say that if I were presented the facts as they have been stated in reports (and to be fair, these are secondhand statements), I would have had no problem voting to convict on leaving the scene and the two evidence tampering charges. Not knowing the specifics of the two manslaughter charges, I can't say how those would have gone.

 

As someone later says, I do not believe this is accurate. His contention is that he didn't know he hit a human being and didn't realize how severe the damage was until he got home.

As for his actions after the fact, they are also the actions of a scared man upon realizing that he hit more then he thought. It might make him a selfish coward that he seemed more concerned for himself, it doesn't make him guilty of man slaughter.

[qwksndmonster]

As someone later says, I do not believe this is accurate. His contention is that he didn't know he hit a human being and didn't realize how severe the damage was until he got home.

As for his actions after the fact, they are also the actions of a scared man upon realizing that he hit more then he thought. It might make him a selfish coward that he seemed more concerned for himself, it doesn't make him guilty of man slaughter.

I don't really understand this. If he was drunk and he hit someone, but doesn't immediately realize he hit someone (you would have to be drunk not to realize it), he should still be held accountable for the death. Manslaughter seems like the appropriate charge.

[LastPommerFan]

I don't really understand this. If he was drunk and he hit someone, but doesn't immediately realize he hit someone (you would have to be drunk not to realize it), he should still be held accountable for the death. Manslaughter seems like the appropriate charge.

 

Whether he realized it or not was only relevant to the "leaving the scene" charge.

 

for Manslaughter they had to prove that the drinking and driving directly caused the death. Since they could agree that he was drunk, it seems reasonable that they would say the drinking might not have had anything to do with the collision.

[darksabre]

I hit a groundhog last month. It ran out in front of me at night. I never saw it. How did I know i hit it? my BMW 525i made a loud thud that made me sick. the damn cars aren't sound proof. I felt the thing when I hit it. I was not intoxicated, and it was BEYOND obvious that I hit something. How can someone say, and 12 others believe that, even in a drunken stupor that they did not feel or hear something that is ten times the size of a groundhog?! it is beyond me! I am dumbfounded how the jurors were able to get lost in the "expert testimonies" and lose all common sense! that really disturbs me.

 

I almost forgot to ask, I thought you got rid of that bimmer?

[That Aud Smell]

After hearing the jury member speak about why they let him go, its convinced me that these jury members were not the sharpest tools in the shed and the defence played on that while the prosecution thought they had enough to put him away without having to work too hard

 

i read and heard his interviews. he sounds like the salt of the earth. he also sounds like he, and others, may have been led by the nose by the defense team's presentation - persuaded to set aside their common sense and endorse metaphysical doubts about soundproof cars and the integrity of blood draws.

 

i also think that the jury - whether they will say it or whether they even realize it - didn't care for the DA's tone during the trial (caustic, sarcastic, condescending, venomous), and preferred the calm, collected, methodical approach of the defense team.

[shrader]

i read and heard his interviews. he sounds like the salt of the earth. he also sounds like he, and others, may have been led by the nose by the defense team's presentation - persuaded to set aside their common sense and endorse metaphysical doubts about soundproof cars and the integrity of blood draws.

 

i also think that the jury - whether they will say it or whether they even realize it - didn't care for the DA's tone during the trial (caustic, sarcastic, condescending, venomous), and preferred the calm, collected, methodical approach of the defense team.

 

The jury foreman quotes I heard made me think immediately of this:

[dEnnis the Menace]

I almost forgot to ask, I thought you got rid of that bimmer?

 

was trying to. Fixed a few parts and had it running for a while. pulley snapped on me last week. Been driving it around as my sh!t car for the last couple months to avoid putting more unneccesary miles on the Subaru (40k in 13 months :death: ) I think I'm definitely going to sell it by fall. at least try to get a few hundred for the thing. it really needs a new transmission. it's still the original, from '91... :bag: slips...quite often...

[tom webster]

I don't really understand this. If he was drunk and he hit someone, but doesn't immediately realize he hit someone (you would have to be drunk not to realize it), he should still be held accountable for the death. Manslaughter seems like the appropriate charge.

 

a) I do not agree with the statement that he would have to be drunk not to know he hit someone

 

b) If he was drunk and his intoxication caused hime to drive erratically and kill someone, as is the case in Lancaster, then yes, its some form of manslaughter.

 

c) In my opinion, if he is intoxicated, but his condition does not cause the accident, then I don't believe its manslaughter. I know its illegal to drive even the slightest bit impaired and I know it will effect your reflexes, but if there is evidence that the accident would have happened anyway, I don't believe its manslaughter. Its stupid, its reckless and its illegal.

 

This is my last entry on this subject. I appreciate the dialogue and I know we will always disagree on this. As a parent, I can't imagine the pain and suffering of Alix's family and I hope I never fully understand it. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

[darksabre]

was trying to. Fixed a few parts and had it running for a while. pulley snapped on me last week. Been driving it around as my sh!t car for the last couple months to avoid putting more unneccesary miles on the Subaru (40k in 13 months :death: ) I think I'm definitely going to sell it by fall. at least try to get a few hundred for the thing. it really needs a new transmission. it's still the original, from '91... :bag: slips...quite often...

 

haha I knew that tranny was the reason you stopped driving it. Not much of a market for a slushbox BMW that isn't working. If it was a stick you could probably get something for it because they're popular for customizing.

[dEnnis the Menace]

haha I knew that tranny was the reason you stopped driving it. Not much of a market for a slushbox BMW that isn't working. If it was a stick you could probably get something for it because they're popular for customizing.

 

yeah. other than the tranny, and a new belt that I'll put on sometime soon in my free time, there isn't anything else wrong with it. it has over 200k miles, and she's still in great condition. I still realize when I've hit something with it too... :rolleyes:

[darksabre]

yeah. other than the tranny, and a new belt that I'll put on sometime soon in my free time, there isn't anything else wrong with it. it has over 200k miles, and she's still in great condition. I still realize when I've hit something with it too... :rolleyes:

 

That's what you expect from the BMW driving experience. You want complete control and sense of everything that your car is doing.

 

I posit that Corasanti probably felt the impact so delicately that he knew her height, weight, blood type and what she had for dinner just from feel.

[dEnnis the Menace]

That's what you expect from the BMW driving experience. You want complete control and sense of everything that your car is doing.

 

I posit that Corasanti probably felt the impact so delicately that he knew her height, weight, blood type and what she had for dinner just from feel.

 

quite possibly. I was pretty sure the groundhog i hit was approximately 10 - 15 LBS, had a large quantity of grass for dinner, maybe partially a mid night snack, and was no more than a foot tall on all fours...prior to the hit of course.

[shrader]

I always knew dEnnis had a thing for trannies.

[darksabre]

I always knew dEnnis had a thing for trannies.

 

He's one of them twin city Ithaca/Cortland boys. :ph34r:

[dEnnis the Menace]

I always knew dEnnis had a thing for trannies.

He's one of them twin city Ithaca/Cortland boys. :ph34r:

 

:blush:

 

I go away for the weekend and this?...jeez haha!

[darksabre]

:blush:

 

I go away for the weekend and this?...jeez haha!

 

You'll learn.

[dEnnis the Menace]

You'll learn.

 

LOL yeah yeah yeah.

[fan2456]

This whole situation is terrible, I don't know corsanti well but I have met him at a couple gatherings, from my judgement, the guy was an a$$. I also hear mixed reviews from patients that have seen him (which I suppose is typical of most doctors)

 

The cold facts= him operating a vehicle while intoxicated and him striking a young girl. Everything else is irrelevant. If he was sober then yes, this is more of a case, but when you drive intoxicated, you should lose some "privelages" as a driver in a court of law. Regardless of if she swerved or not, he was drunk! This overrules any chance of this not being his fault.

 

Im a very big advocate against driving intoxicated, I've slept in my car at the hospital or in an on call room before, many people in corsantis status feel they are above that, and that is the kind of arrogance that is disgusting.

 

I wont blame the jurors, as several others have mentioned, we don't know all of the facts, the judge also has a right to overturn a verdict as well. I didn't follow this case closely enough to say they got it right or wrong, it just is what it is and it just Appears to me that this one should have probably gone the other way

Agreed on almost all points and I probably followed less than you.. As an aside, when I saw the picture in Sunday's Buffalo News with a sidewalk it made me sick. I have no idea of the facts, or who's fault it was, but at my more mature age I'd trust no one but myself. I'd have been on the sidewalk. Please, impress this on your children. You can only protect yourself and trust no one.

[Sabre Dance]

i read and heard his interviews. he sounds like the salt of the earth. he also sounds like he, and others, may have been led by the nose by the defense team's presentation - persuaded to set aside their common sense and endorse metaphysical doubts about soundproof cars and the integrity of blood draws.

 

i also think that the jury - whether they will say it or whether they even realize it - didn't care for the DA's tone during the trial (caustic, sarcastic, condescending, venomous), and preferred the calm, collected, methodical approach of the defense team.

 

I also found it interesting that the jury was made up of blue-collar types (according to the News article), most from Buffalo and the rest from the Southtowns. In other words, those most likely to have never owned or driven a BMW. Believe me, I was T-boned while driving a BMW and I both heard and felt it. These are not "magic carriages", they are simply automobiles, albeit well-engineered ones.

 

 

Agreed on almost all points and I probably followed less than you.. As an aside, when I saw the picture in Sunday's Buffalo News with a sidewalk it made me sick. I have no idea of the facts, or who's fault it was, but at my more mature age I'd trust no one but myself. I'd have been on the sidewalk. Please, impress this on your children. You can only protect yourself and trust no one.

 

My God, yes... I have seen people jogging in bike lanes right out on the white line; inline skaters, skateboarders and even people pushing their babies in strollers literally inches from traffic. There are many roads in the outlying suburbs and more rural areas that don't have sidewalks, so there is no choice. But if you are walking, jogging, or pushing a 9 month-old child in a stroller, please use the sidewalks if they are there!

[shrader]

I also found it interesting that the jury was made up of blue-collar types (according to the News article), most from Buffalo and the rest from the Southtowns. In other words, those most likely to have never owned or driven a BMW. Believe me, I was T-boned while driving a BMW and I both heard and felt it. These are not "magic carriages", they are simply automobiles, albeit well-engineered ones.

 

While I don't buy his defense one bit, there's a big difference between being t-boned in a BMW and hitting something while driving a BMW.