Brookline police claim they proved motorist didn't contact cyclist
By Brett - Fri, 10/09/2009 - 1:59pm.
Despite a motorist stopping at the scene and telling police that he struck Tracy Milillo (who died of her injuries), Brookline police claim that unnamed magical "forensic tests" prove that his vehicle didn't contact Tracy or her bike. “We’re not sure why the bike fell.”
- Add new comment |
- Send to a friend |
| 
| 
Adam posted about this on
Adam posted about this on Monday, when Wicked Local Brookline reported it.
http://www.universalhub.com/node/28084
"Magical" forensic tests?
This was a terrible tragedy. I am hopeful that Tracy will not have died in vain, as the Town of Brookline has been, and continues to be, quite serious about establishing a safer bike corridor to connect the Longwood Medical Area with Cambridge (a high traffic bike route) and to make other parts of town safer to bike through.
I must say that I find the insinuation in the post that the Brookline police are either incompetent or protecting the driver to be a troubling one. Where is the evidence for this tacit assertion? Rather than any forensic tests being "magical" I would suggest that it would be very easy indeed to determine if a car struck a bicycle using visible physical evidence, e.g., there would almost certainly be paint or another substance from the vehicle present on the bicycle if they had come into contact.
Why does it sound fishy to you that a very unfortunate young woman who was not wearing a helmet but was carrying a heavy backpack could have lost her balance, fallen off her bike, and suffered a fatal head injury when she impacted the ground? As terribly sad as this is, I think it is entirely possible, and perhaps likely, to have been the case. The driver, like many others who witness traumatic events, could very well have been mistaken in what s/he thought she saw or even felt.
not surprising
I am not surprised that the forensic exam did not find any physical evidence, such as paint transfer. The car could have contacted the handlebars, the pedal, the rear wheel, or the rider and not left any marks. So I would consider the lack of physical evidence as inconclusive if the car made contact, not that the car made no contact. I think that the conclusion by the Brookline police goes too far. Unfortunately, this also does not rule out that she may have lost her balance and just fallen. Or that a slight bump from the car sent her off balance.
or the rider could have just
or the rider could have just been spooked by the car. Assuming the car didn't see her (the main reason for actual crashes), he could have come close enough to scare a rider into falling.
"Assuming the car didn't see her "
Even though some cars are equipped with sensors these days, robotic technology hasn't advanced to the point where I would say that any car ever sees anyone.
Let's remember that cyclists and drivers operate vehicles called cars and bikes, but the operators do the sensing and controlling.
where does it say this?
"Despite a motorist stopping at the scene and telling police that he struck Tracy Milillo"
And where does it say that the tests were "magical"? The state police processed the bike, car, and the autoposy would show other injuries.
Unless you mean the assumption based on the evidence that she was not hit was "magical". That I can understand. I would say there was not enough proof to charge this driver with a vehicle homicide, instead of saying that "we know it (the bike) did not (collide with the vehicle).