SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Cheney Shoots Ducks (and a person) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (711)2/16/2006 9:27:03 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1307
 
Try not to sound so ignorant.....

snopes.com



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (711)2/16/2006 9:29:09 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 1307
 
Try not to sound so ignorant.....

There are those who want to believe the future First Lady deliberately and with malice aforethought murdered her (ex-)boyfriend over some now forgotten teen tiff and who point to what they view as the suspicious circumstances of the accident and the subsequent lack of prosecution as proofs of their supposition. Yet to entertain such a hypothesis is to believe the young woman would have attempted to kill another by doing away with herself. (As the driver of what was intended to be a murder weapon, she would have had no reason to believe she would survive a collision severe enough to be fatal to her prey — that events turned out that way doesn't mean that outcome could have been reasonably foreseen.) Although the theory of "I'll kill you even though I have to kill myself to do it" might still play in a person sufficiently vengeance-minded (e.g., a suicide bomber), it is far better discounted in cases where an innocent life would also be taken (e.g., a passenger in the car). Those intent upon acts of revenge are generally impelled by a misguided sense of justice, and there is precious little justice (misguided or otherwise) in causing the death of innocent parties.

Then there are the circumstances of the crash. It was 8 pm on a November night in Texas on roads far removed from any town, so it was dark. With no stop sign facing him, the doomed young man would have had no reason to slow his vehicle even if he had seen another car approaching the intersection. He therefore would have been travelling at least 50 mph. Laura Welch ran the stop sign facing her, so there is reason to assume she too was going approximately 50 mph, the speed she would have been doing if she'd had the right of way.

Consider two cars travelling in the dark at right angles to each other, each going approximately 50 mph. The span of time available in which to form murderous intent would have amounted to mere seconds, given the speed at which the event was unfolding and how close the two vehicles had to be to one another before the ill-intentioned would recognize the vehicle of her target. It doesn't add up.


snopes.com



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (711)2/16/2006 9:38:25 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1307
 
How to you make these kind of charges with no evidence. Why are you obscessed with this story? Very low road indeed--attacking a 17 year old girl. I am sure you were perfect at that age and never made a driving error then or now while combing your hair in the rear view mirror or even now talking incessantly on your cell or spilling some super-hot starbucks coffee in your lap or turning to tend to a crying child and losing control of your car. I have run stop signs too and thank God that nothing bad occurred. And i wasnt drunk and i wasnt out hunting for a suitor who jilted me.