• Steve Weichman... The family of Conley Lane has many unanswered questions, which we respectfully request you to answer.

 

• It is the opinion of the Lane family that Teton County authorities failed to conduct an objective investigation. Teton County and the State of Wyoming failed to charge or investigate David Yearsley in the face of substantial evidence.

 

• The road was so slick that night that sanding trucks were allowed to clean and scrape 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 an unrelated accident was the road closed for over 7 hours when there wasn't even a fatality? Why?

 

• The Asst. Prosecuting Attorney Steve Weichman, currently Prosecuting Attorney of Teton County, was called out to the hospital to assist in and guide the investigation, which is highly irregular. He also told the State Trooper not to take blood samples until he arrived. Again, highly irregular. Then he would only allow the Trooper to take one vial of Yearsley's blood, when two is the norm for an intoxicated driver. He knew Yearsley was intoxicated! The decision to draw only one sample of blood from Darrell Beck and David Yearsley, in retrospect, appears to have been a very poor decision. Why were blood samples of Darrell Beck taken if you did not suspect him of being the driver?

 

• Is it normally the practice of a prosecuting attorney to dictate procedure to, or otherwise manage Highway Patrol Officers regarding blood-sampling procedures during ongoing crash-fatality investigations?

 

• Brad Mead is the chairman of the committee to re-elect Steve Weichman and a prominent attorney. Brad Meade is extremely good friends with the Yearsley's and in fact, taught David Yearsley how to fly a plane. Brad Meade also told Tony Mathews’ wife, Lonnie, that Yearsley was 50% responsible for this collision. Here say, but interesting.

 

• Steve Weichman had the blood samples of the deceased delivered directly from coroner Bob Cambell's office to his own office, therefore contaminating the evidence. Mr. Campbell misrepresented the truth when he said he personally sent the blood samples directly to the State Lab in Cheyenne. Trooper Delane Baldwin made the delivery of the blood samples himself to Weichman's office. How could you handle this case regarding two fatalities with such malfeasance? Why misrepresent the truth? Could this be the reason Darrell Beck's BAC showed .01, when he admitted to having many drinks? Ollie Sutherland and Conley Lane's BAC's were reportedly extremely high when in fact, Tony Matthews, was the last person to see these young men alive, and they had not been drinking at all. Did any officer ever question Tony Matthews? Why not? How did the blood sample sequence numbers become out of order when two samples were taken in the morgue and the other two samples taken at bedside in the hospital? The autopsy of the two young men mentions no alcohol at all.

 

• It seems that the prosecuting attorney, Steve Weichman, never took the interest or the time to try and uncover the truth about this wreck. He couldn't be sure if Conley and Ollie were in the vehicle or out of it. There was a Forensic Pathologist in Richmond, Virginia who, after looking over the autopsy report, said there was a good chance the boys were not in the Bronco when they were hit. Also, an informant came forward and said that Yearsley told him the Bronco was sitting still when they hit it. Heresay of course but stirs the curiosity. Was this plausible theory ever investigated? I suppose.  This would be a difficult theory to prove, since the victims’ clothes were completely destroyed the next day at the morgue. Evidence, mind you. The questions that remains are WHY were both Ollie's and Conley's clothes destroyed? This is an extremely unusual method of investigating an incident of this nature, and requires further scrutiny by federal authorities.

 

• David Yearsley had a BAC of .11, which, in the State of Wyoming, is considered legally intoxicated. David Yearsley was never charged for this infraction. There were four occupants in the front seat of the Chevy pick up truck that David Yearsley was allegedly driving, which is illegal. David Yearsley was speeding in hazardous conditions and inattentive, which has been documented and, again, has never been charged with this infraction.

 

• Did it ever concern the Teton County prosecuting attorney's office, at any point in the investigation, that according to the report of Trooper Baldwin and Trooper Wilson, they could not be sure who was driving the Yearsley vehicle? How did they, Mr. Weichman, ultimately conclude that it was Mr. Yearsley who was operating the truck? Did anyone, Mr. Weichman, question why it was necessary to have an extrication crew remove Mr. Beck, rather than Mr. Yearsley, from behind the steering wheel following the accident? How did they, Mr. Weichman, conclude, legally, that Mr. Yearsley was in fact driving the vehicle? What was the legal point of taking Mr. Beck's blood for analysis if there was no reason to believe he might have been driving? Could they, Mr. Weichman, have possibly influenced Dr. Koch's BAC analysis of Mr. Beck's blood for purposes of protecting Mr. Beck in some way? How did they, Mr. Weichman, resolve in their own thinking the fact that Mr. Beck testified to having consumed far more than enough alcohol to make him legally drunk on the evening of the accident, while Dr. Koch's BAC findings on him were, inexplicably, at the .01 level?

 

• The father of Ollie Sutherland asked to collect his son's belongings from the Bronco II and was told by Trooper Baldwin that he could not, due to the fact that the incident was still under investigation. After the Funeral, John asked again and was refused by Mr. Weichman’s office. What was he trying to hide? What investigation?

 

• Why was the Yearsley vehicle almost immediately taken to another state, two hundred miles away, and never again made available to other, impartial, reconstructionists? Is this normal procedure Mr. Weichman? Curious...

 

• Steve Weichman told the mother of Conley Lane that the driver, David Yearsley, had been put through a field sobriety test. David Yearsley was never subjected to a field sobriety test. Appears the left doesn't know what the right is doing...

 

• Not one of the occupants in the Yearsley vehicle was ever officially questioned or had to give a statement concerning this incident where two young men were killed. The Erby's, who wrecked their vehicle during this incident, were never questioned either. Why? What is the significance of the Erby's wrecking their vehicle at approximately the same time? Were the Erby's in front of the Yearsley vehicle or behind? Cindy & Wayne Williams stated they were behind the Yearsley vehicle and that no other vehicle was between them and the Yearsley vehicle. The decision by Steve Weichman not to investigate this wreck is certainly incomprehensible and paradoxical in our opinion.

 

• The standards or protocols used to determine whether someone should be prosecuted or not by Mr. Weichman’s office are unclear. Here is an article concerning a vehicular homicide case. In Teton County, Steve Weichman says, "the test that measured Hammers’ blood alcohol content at .08 was taken more than three hours after the incident. His level must have been significantly higher at the time of the accident." Weichman said that there is "extensive literature" arguing that no person is capable of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher.

 

• Didn't this literature exist in 1992? What about David Yearsley? He had a BAC of .11 and wasn't tested until 2 hours after the incident. Must have been significantly higher at the time of the incident, don't you think? Why is David Yearsley immune to prosecution?

 

• If Steve Weichman supports tougher DUI laws as he claims, then why were the locals let go scot-free? Steve Weichman convicts on a .08 BAC but not Yearsley's .11???

•   Read the article where another DUI case gets dropped by Steve Weichman

• Check this out...Since Steve Weichman is so concerned with saving lives concerning DUI laws, then why is the death of this man of "No community Impact”? Conflict???

 

• EMT Jeff Stratton specifically heard comments concerning a vial of cocaine and some cash associated with the pickup truck and its occupants.

 

• Steve Weichman told Conley Lane's parents in an interview with them that had Ollie Sutherland survived the accident; he would have put him in jail for the maximum time allowable because he was driving while intoxicated and caused this accident? If so, why does he not feel as strongly about the other driver, David Yearsley, whose blood alcohol levels demonstrated him to be legally, and functionally intoxicated, as well. David Yearsley's own statements and later testimony, which indicated that he was driving irresponsibly under existing road conditions?

 

• According to two separate articles in Jackson newspapers, Steve Weichman declined to prosecute Mr. Darrell Beck and Ms. Terri Willard as cocaine traffickers in return for their testimony against a third suspect. He were quoted in one of the articles as having "...cut quite the deal..." with both these people. It is known that Mr. Beck possibly was the driver in the Yearsley truck, as was the sister of Ms. Willard, Mrs. Wendy Yearsley (Phelps). In that a pattern of witness negotiation and protection has been publicly established with Beck and Willard, is it reasonable to hypothesize that Steve Weichman’s protection in this traffic fatality extended to Beck, Anderson, and, thus, David Yearsley? If not, should it be concluded that the involvement of participants in both sets of circumstances was merely a quirk of coincidence? Should it be further concluded that Mr. Yearsley's association with a known drug dealer and drug user, and the sister of another dealer and user was insufficient for Steve Weichman to consider substance abuse on the part of Mr. Yearsley as a contributing prosecutable factor in this case?

 

There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.

John F. Kennedy