The Deceased's 86 Ford Bronco
 

This idyllic little community that is praised frequently, unconditionally, and without reservation on national television by Gerry Spence, is about to bust wide open. My bet is that it will be skillfully contained unless someone looks into it, exposes it, and writes about it.

Accident reconstructionist, Sergeant John Daily, knew the Yearsley family and associated with them socially. Does this strike you as a potentially problematic from a perspective of bias? Should we be bothered by the fact that Sergeant Daily was a paid member of the Teton County law enforcement system who was simultaneously hired as a consultant by David Yearsley's insurance company to determine whom was at fault in the accident? Isn't this a conflict in interest? Did you know that Sergeant John Daily refused to sign his deposition on this event. Protect his @#?!% in case things went south. There was no blood found in the Bronco at ALL. Interesting enough, John Daily didn't visit the collision site until sometime after the 14th of December. The collision occurred on the night of the 11th. John Daily did not take any photos. He relied soley on information provided by Officer Delane Baldwin and Sergeant Jim Wilson. No photos of the collision site were ever taken by officers directly after the incident. Officers always carry a camera for just these types of events. We were told that the camera malfunctioned. Their had to be at least 10 officers on site. Where are the photos??? There is conflicting evidence as to whether this collision was head on or a collision from the side, perpendicular, termed, "L configuration". The reconstructionist, John Daily, determined that the vehicles did indeed collide in an L configuration. This means that he bronco was hit on the passenger's side. Mr. Daily concluded that the impact on the bronco was at the wheel well or just behind. We are uncertain as to how he came to this conclusion. John Daily's credentials are many and has written several books on vehicle accident reconstruction, and has had extensive training in this area. Why did John Daily refuse to sign his official report? How could he misplace this report and then suddenly find it the day he was to testify. No one else had an opportunity to review his conclusions which was the determining factor in the Civil trial. Photo 1 shows the side of Ollie's Ford Bronco and where John daily concluded the impact occurred. If you look closely you can see the buckling just above the wheel well and on the passenger side door. The force of the impact is pushing the front end backward therefore causing the buckling to occur. This buckling is indicative of a head on collision. We have had law enforcement officers review this photo and have came to the same conclusion. If Photo 1 doesn't convince you, then take a look at photo 2. There is no way this wasn't a head on collision. We believe that local authorities are seemingly trying to cover up the facts in this case. They may be trying to put Ollie's vehicle speeding, sideways in the road, across the centerline to make it appear that they were at fault. Photo 2 shows the front of the Ford Bronco. Now, tell me how the front of this vehicle sustained this kind of damage if it were hit in the side as John Daily concluded. Photo 3 shows the rear of the Ford Bronco. Notice the frame of the cab on the passenger's side. It is bent backwards towards the rear meaning that the force from the impact could only have occur from the front. HEAD ON. The frame would not have bent in this fashion from an L shaped or perpendicular impact. We simply don't believe this was an L shaped collision. How could John Daily come to the conclusions he did?? John daily's report was never questioned because he only found it the day of the trial. What's wrong with this picture??? Photo 4 shows a clear view of the front tire of the Ford Bronco. The cause of the collision was placed solely on the Sutherland vehicle. Authorities said the cause was hazardous conditions, unfamiliarity with the area, and bad or worn tires for these types of road conditions, and of course DUI, which Ollie has never been charged with. Well, here is a photo of the worn tire that father John Sutherland bought just two weeks prior to Ollie making the trip to Jackson Hole. I see no wear or tear on this tire at all. John Daily deemed the tires on the Bronco II (vehicle #2) fair. Sergeant Daily's report includes conclusions of highway patrolmen who compiled their reports on conjecture, assumptions, opinions and theories of bystanders, intoxicated accident victims, and the statements of Yearsley's friends, family, and employees who arrived on the scene minutes later? Is it significant that the conclusions of these officers varies substantially from Sergeant Daily's regarding factors contributing to the cause of the accident? Is there any possibility that Sergeant Daily framed his findings to coordinate with your witness protection efforts on behalf of Mr. Beck and/or sister of Ms. Willard. Wendy Yearsley (Phelps)? Maybe Steve Weichman can answer that question?	Photo 1 - Sergeant John Daily concluded this is an L configuration collision
	Photo 2 - Front view appears to be a head on collision
	Photo 3 - Rear view buckling front to rear
	Photo 4 -  Tires don't looks so bad

The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly.


Richard Bach