He also considered a charge of negligent driving, which is a traffic infraction, and reckless driving, which is a gross misdemeanor, but the statute of limitations on both of those charges had expired by the time new evidence came to light, Haskell said.
*** Probably better to get it right the first time so you don’t have to worry about the Statute of Limitations expiring. I wonder how much time and money was wasted on Grant Fredericks. It looks like the SPD should have got the expert hired by the family who lead Jarrod Carter of Origin Forensics to find the hat band impression on the bumper.
Maurer said nobody from the county called and told Holyk’s parents charges would not be filed, leaving them to find out from the news release.
*** Gee Mr. Maurer, you are a lawyer you should know that even though it is the right thing to do, Prosecutors are only “encouraged” to do so under RCW 9.94A.411 Evidentiary sufficiency.
DOG GONE DEFENSE/LITIGATION EXPERTS, THEY SPOIL EVERYTHING!
NEW EVIDENCE PRESS CONFERENCE:
Carter, of Origin Forensics, said he recently viewed an animation prepared by an expert hired by the Holyk family as part of a civil lawsuit filed against the Sheriff’s Office. It showed that Holyk put his bike down in an attempt to avoid a collision and then turned around to try to escape to the curb on the north side of Sprague. As Holyk did this, Bodman swerved from a middle lane toward the right, likewise trying to avoid a collision, and the left side of his bumper hit Holyk’s head. The animation shows that Holyk would have been spun counterclockwise and landed on top of his bike.
In closely examining the photos taken of the left front bumper he saw a “broken pattern” near where Holyk’s DNA had been found. He said he converted the photo to black and white and then applied a negative effect to make the pattern stand out and matched it to the hat band of a hat similar to the one Holyk wore backward.
*** Why use a similar hat? The hat Holyk was wearing was placed into evidence by Officer P Taylor on May 24, 2014, what happened to it?
“The bumper did in fact strike Mr. Holyk’s head,” he said. “That’s the only explanation I have.”
*** Well it proves Bodman was truthful in his statements that he hit Holyk back in 2014.
Carter said he’s not sure why no one spotted the pattern before.
*** Yes, that is a bit odd, isn’t it?
Prosecutor Larry Haskell said in light of the new evidence, criminal charges against Bodman will be re-evaluated. He had previously cleared Bodman of any criminal violations based on multiple internal and external investigations that concluded Bodman did not strike Holyk.
*** I don’t get it! If Prosecutor Haskell cleared Bodman of any criminal violations (Negligent Homicide, Reckless Driving) because the previous investigations concluded he didn’t strike Holyk and now the forensic evidence coupled with Bodman’s statements that he did hit Holyk wouldn’t that make it greater than a “high likelihood” that Bodman hit Holyk? Oh well…never mind.
Knezovich said he believes Holyk put himself in the path of the patrol car when he turned and moved back toward the curb.
“Had Holyk stayed on the bike, this would not have happened,” he said.
*** I guess when you continually say Bodman didn’t hit Holyk, and it turns out he did, in order not to have to eat some serious crow, it is better to blame the dead person?
I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!