Accident Reconstructionist John Daily

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?


Accident reconstructionist, Sergeant John Daily, stated in his deposition that he went to the site with Trooper Delane Baldwin however, Trooper Baldwin states in his deposition, that he never provided John Daily with any information. Was John Daily Lying??? How could a reconstructionist, reconstruct an accident scene without, one, interviewing the officer in charge or, two, visiting the accident scene. Where did John daily get his information?? How could his testimony, be admissible in court when its obvious his analysis is lacking in credibility.


Sergeant John Daily, working from rough data provided to him by whoever, drew diagrams and made written calculations which purportedly demonstrated the cause of the fatal collision involving Conley Lane, Ollie Sutherland, David Yearsley, Darrell Beck, Wendi Yearsley (Phelps), and Heidi Anderson to be that of Ollie's Sutherlands. Sergeant Daily's report of the accident caused others to believe that the Sutherland vehicle was travelling as fast as 69 mph and was out of control at the time of the accident. This report disappeared at that point and did not show up at a subsequent deposition of Sergeant Daily on April 1-1, 1995 because it was "misplaced." Sergeant Daily's deposition was taken without benefit of his report and without substantial objection from Mr. Wolfe at the point of that deposition. Because he had been urged to do so by counsel for the defendant, Sergeant Daily "found" the "misfiled" report less than twelve hours before he was to appear as an expert witness in these proceedings.


The civil trail was lost because the proceedings were biased against the plaintiffs. The unavailability of John Daily's lost documents which could not be examined by counsel for the plaintiffs nor by any other expert witness who might have been called to examine Sergeant Daily's calculations, diagrams, and resulting conclusions. In that the entire case pivoted - on the report and testimony of Sergeant Daily in determining who was at fault in the accident, the trial was not a fair and impartial trial.


It became obvious that there was a gross misrepresentation and/or understanding during Sergeant Daily's testimony of the location of Sutherland's vehicle at the point of impact. An expert witnesses who could correct the impressions, provide a different version of the circumstances, and challenge the speed estimates of Sergeant Daily, was never flown in to testify. The plaintiffs attorney, Mr. Wolfe responded that perhaps the plaintiff's ought to fire him as their attorney and then refused to follow that request and instruction from his clients.


Any number of persons, during voire dire in the civil trial, admitted knowing John Daily either by reputation, personally, socially, or through his business or police work. One witness contaminated the remainder of the jurors during voire dire by offering unrestrained testimony about her perception of his expertise, his reliability his competence, his scholarly achievements, and his unquestioned credibility. Every seated juror, as well as the remainder of the panel was biased regarding Daily's credibility as an expert witness before the trial even began. So many potential jurors raised their hands when Mr. Bommer asked if anyone knew him that it drew a joke from Mr. Bommer and laughter from the entire jury panel, legal team for the defense, and defense family and witnesses seated in the courtroom. Since the outcome of this trial pivoted on Sergeant Daily's testimony, it was proportionately biased with no objections from Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Bommer, or Judge Rogers.
You people in Jackson Hole believe the death of two young men to be funny? Is this a joke to you?



A man, whom we will not mention by name, said that Yearsley told him the Bronco was sitting still when they hit it. This is purely here say of course but noteworthy.


Sergeant John's made statements that Sergeant John Daily was present at the scene that night and drove is police car back to town. He later recanted this statement.


Did you know that Sergeant John Daily refused to sign his official deposition in this case? Is it really official then?


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 solely on information provided by Officer Delane Baldwin and Sergeant Jim Wilson.


The road was so slick that night that sanding trucks were allowed to clean and scrap the road, for public safety reasons, prior to an in-depth investigation of the site. This possibly destroyed any evidence on the roadway.

Why, in this unrelated accident was the road closed for over 7 hours when there wasn't even a fatality? Why?


John Daily calculated the speed of the Chevy Pickup at approximately 49 - 56 mph and the Bronco II at 62 - 69 mph.


Now, Cindy Williams noted Yearsley's speed and position when Yearsley passed her. Just before skyline and in the straight. This photo depicts the locations and any idiot can calculate that David Yearsley was traveling at more than twice the speed of Cindy Williams. Cindy was traveling at 38 - 40 mph and in order for Yearsley to be in Browns curve when Cindy reached the top of skyline he had to be traveling around 70 mph range. A little common sense goes a long way.

Take a very careful look at this photo. Ollie was traveling west on Rt. 22 on what officials have stated as hazardous conditions. Black Ice! See that huge curve right before Browns curve? How could Ollie possibly be traveling at 62 - 69 mph around that curve on black ice prior to reaching browns curve? Could this collision have possible happen the way John daily's official, [ lost , found ] unsigned deposition, unofficial report states?



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 Darrell Beck and Terry Willard, sister of Wendy Yearsley (Phelps)?


The Yearsley vehicle was taken almost immediately to another state, two hundred miles away, and never again made available to other, impartial, reconstructionists. Courious, John Daily didn't even go to the scene until after the 14th. Where was the Yearsley vehicle? Did you even examine the vehicle?


There is conflicting evidence as to exactly were the wreck occurred. On one hand, reconstructionist John Daily determined that the vehicles were in Browns Curve when they collided. Daily's official reconstruction. Yet state trooper, officer Delane Baldwin, stated that the collision was not in browns curve at all but occurred at the edge of Browns curve.



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 but it appears he missed this one. Why?
Not one of the occupants in the Yearsley vehicle were ever questioned or had to give a statement concerning this incident where two young men were killed. Why?


The photos here will show that this was a head on collision. We believe that local authorities may be covering up the facts in this case. They seem to purposely be trying to put Ollie's vehicle speeding, sideways in the road, across centerline to make it appear that they were at fault. Yet the facts in this case simply do not coincide with John Daily's conclusions. The Erby's were eyewitnesses to the collision, yet hey have never given a statement or had to testify in court. How could this be?

 

Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.

Henry A. Kissinger