Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law.  And when the law loses, freedom languishes.

Robert F. Kennedy

 

The families are saddened by the knowledge that David Yearsley, alleged driver of the other vehicle, walked away from a double fatality accident with no citation for:

 

(1)   Exceeding the posted speed limit (by his own admission and testimony)

(2)   Driving too fast for existing road conditions (by his own admission, by statements and testimony of passengers riding in his truck that evening, and by statements and testimony of witnesses who he passed just prior to the collision)

(3)   Driving with too many passengers in the front seat of his two-seat pickup truck

(4)   Driving with open alcohol containers in his truck, and

(5)   Most significantly, driving while intoxicated (by his own admission, his own testimony, testimony of Highway Patrol officers at the scene, and by official blood work done by the state’s own laboratory and personnel)

 

It is a fact that the evidence, which substantiates this litany, exists in public records, that it was ignored (or disregarded) by police officials who should have used it to issue citations for the infractions, and that it constitutes a rational basis for resentment, if not outrage, for relatives of the other driver who has been determined to be "...100% responsible..." for the accident. Respectfully, the families would like an explanation as to why Steve Weichman’s office declined to prosecute Mr. Yearsley for anything following an accident of this nature, while motor vehicle operators in the county are routinely cited for speeding, driving too fast for conditions, DUI, improper equipment, following too close, failure to yield, failing to stop at a red light and other violations, which do not result in any accidents at all, much less fatal accidents.

 

It is the families hope that, upon reinvestigation of the accident with regard to the points enumerated below, that Steve Weichman might reconsider his decision not to prosecute Mr. Yearsley and that he will see his way clear to do so based upon reconsideration of the facts uncovered. Failing a decision based upon the families’ request(demand) to do so, not to prosecute Mr. Yearsley, they would respectfully request a written explanation of Steve Weichman’s reasons for not prosecuting him, along with detailed answers to the questions posed toward that end.

 

First, the families are curious about some circumstances surrounding Steve Weichman’s role, actions, and motives in the investigation:

 

1. Is Steve Weichman routinely called immediately following every major traffic accident where fatalities occur in Teton County? If not, why was he called for this particular accident?
2. Is it Steve Weichman’s practice to dictate procedure to, or otherwise manage, Highway Patrol Officers regarding blood-sampling procedures during ongoing crash-fatality investigations?
3. What was Steve Weichman’s rationale, legal or otherwise, to direct that a second blood sample not be taken from the living driver of the accident (concluded to be David Yearsley)?
4. With whom, if anyone, did Steve Weichman consult, including superiors, accident victims, the family of accident victims, attorneys for those victims, the county coroner, highway patrol supervisors, or others regarding evidence collection and investigative procedures in the first minutes and hours following the accident? What, if any, influence did such consultations have on Steve Weichman’s subsequent decision to disregard the violations of law committed by Mr. Yearsley?
5. Did Steve Weichman, at any point, influence the investigating officers not to cite Mr. Yearsley for exceeding the posted speed limit, driving too fast for existing road conditions, exceeding reasonable seating capacity in the front seat of his vehicle, or driving while drinking? If he did, what were the reasons (i.e., legal bases) for doing so? Are these officers correct or incorrect in stating, under oath, that it was Steve Weichman’s direction which prevented them from charging Mr. Yearsley with these violations?
6. After the investigation was substantially complete, why (statutorily) did Steve Weichman elect not to charge Mr. Yearsley and prosecute him for those clear, unrefuted infractions?
7. Is it true that Steve Weichman told Conley Lane's parents in an interview with them that, had Ollie Sutherland survived the accident, you 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 Steve Weichman not feel as strongly about the other driver, whose blood alcohol levels demonstrated him to be legally and functionally intoxicated as well, and whose statements and later testimony indicated that he was driving irresponsibly under existing road conditions?
8. According to two separate articles in Jackson newspapers, Steve Weichman declined to prosecute Darrell Beck and Terri Willard as cocaine traffickers in return for their testimony against a third suspect. Steve Weichman was quoted in one of the articles as having "...cut quite the deal..." with both these people. As is evident, Mr. Beck was a passenger 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 we conclude 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(i.e. excessive alcohol consumption) on the part of Mr. Yearsley as a contributing prosecutable factor in this case?
9. Is Steve Weichman confident that the accident reconstructionist, Sergeant Daily, submitted a completely unbiased, technically accurate, and thoroughly considered report on the physical determinants of the accident? Did the fact that Sergeant Daily knew the Yearsley family, and associated with them socially, ever strike Steve Weichman as potentially problematic from a perspective of bias? Was Steve Weichman ever bothered by the fact that Sergeant Daily was a paid member of the law enforcement system in his county, who was simultaneously hired as a consultant by David Yearsley's insurance company to determine who was at fault in the accident? Does it concern Steve Weichman that Sergeant Daily did not come to the scene of the accident? Does it concern Steve Weichman that 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 vary 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 Steve Weichman’s witness protection efforts on bcha1f of' Mr. Beck and/or Ms. Anderson?
10. If Steve Weichman were troubled at any point in the investigation by the report of Trooper Baldwin and Trooper Wilson that they could not be sure who was driving the Yearsley vehicle, how did he ultimately conclude that it was Mr. Yearsley who was operating the truck? Did he 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 Steve 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 Steve 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 Steve Weichman resolve in his 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?
11. How did Steve Weichman resolve the conflicting reports that Ollie Sutherland was found by one witness to be trapped in the Bronco and by others to be outside the vehicle, lying in the snow? How did Steve Weichman conclude conclude from the sketchy and (according to their own testimony) conjectural reports of the highway patrol officers that Ollie Sutherland was, in fact, the driver of the Bronco? How does Steve Weichman you account for witness statements that Ollie was bleeding profusely when pulled from the Bronco when neither witnesses nor photographs revealed any blood whatsoever in the Bronco?
12. From a "chain of evidence" perspective, is Steve Weichman satisfied that procedure was followed when highway patrol officers transported the blood samples not to a laboratory, but to Steve Weichman’s office where they were later handed to Dr. Koch for analysis? Would Steve Weichman be willing to share the substance and details of this interaction with Dr. Koch when he transferred the blood to him for analysis? Is it unusual for Steve Weichman to have possession of blood samples and to submit them physically for analysis through personal interaction with the lab personnel who are, ordinarily, located on the other side of the state? Why was Dr. Koch in Jackson at the time these blood samples happened to become available for analysis? If it was/is Steve Weichman’s position that Mr. Yearsley' blood had been drawn illegally, why did he submit it for analysis along with the other samples?
13. How did Steve Weichman resolve the inconsistency surrounding Officer Wilson's signature on official documents, which indicated that he witnessed blood samples being drawn from the victims, and his subsequent testimony that he did not witness these procedures? Would this not invalidate (i.e., render inadmissible in court and inconclusive in the investigation) the blood evidence for their samples and all victims? And since the blood evidence seems to be the basis, indeed the pivot point, for the conclusion drawn by Steve Weichman’s office, and subsequently in court that Ollie Sutherland was 100% responsible for the accident, was/is there not a requirement that this "fact," therefore, be challenged on his behalf? Would such a challenge not be the responsibility of Steve Weichman’s office?
14. Since no one was asked to identify his body, and since he reportedly had no identification on his person, how was it established that the body found in the Bronco, (or in the snow, depending on whose report you accept) was that of Ollie Sutherland? Was authorization from Steve Weichman’s office or a judge necessary (legally required) for county officials to enter and search his motel room? Was such authorization requested and/or granted?
15. When the father of Ollie arrived in Jackson from Virginia and asked to examine Ollie's Bronco, he was told by Officer Baldwin that, because the accident was still "under investigation," the county attorney's office would not allow him to do so. Is this standard practice? After Ollie’s funeral, his father requested that he be allowed to remove Ollie's personal belongings from the Bronco in order to take them home with the rest of his effects.  He was given the same answer. This difficult to accept, and the families would like to know what legal basis there was for refusing such access, and what the specific suspicion was in this case which made access unallowable.

 

There are a number of other questions and issues which are of a more general nature, and which one would hope a reinvestigation might illuminate. Realizing that it may not be possible in each instance.  The families would nevertheless appreciate your best, clearest, and most solid answers to these:

 

1. On the morning following the accident, why were Ollie's parents told specifically and directly by Bob Campbell (who volunteered the information) that there was no evidence of alcohol as a factor in the accident? Why did he tell them specifically, directly, and voluntarily that there were no alcohol containers found in either the Bronco or other evidence of drinking by the driver or passenger? Why did he make a point of telling them this during their initial long-distance telephone contact with him following the accident? Was he, or was he not, aware that each member of the Yearsley party had been drinking, and that Yearsley's drinking was a suspected factor in the accident? In his role as County Coroner, and as the county's official point of contact for the families, did he have any sort of statutory responsibility to provide all the information he had, or was he allowed to withhold apparently damaging information about either party in the accident?
2. On what basis did Bob Campbell tell the families in their initial telephone contact with him that the accident occurred on "black ice," because tires on the Bronco were not winter-rated tires, and that Ollie was an inexperienced driver in such hazardous conditions?
3. What was Bob Campbell’s point in telling the family(ies) there had "been five other fatalities on "Brown's Curve" in recent years, and that the highway patrol routinely lowers the speed limit to forty-five miles per hour in that area in winter months?
4. How could Bob Campbell tell Ollie's parents, in the mortician's office in Jackson two days following the accident, the same account of the accident? If Ollie was intoxicated, speeding, and driving recklessly, why was the coroner not informed of the circumstances? If he had been informed, why did he withhold the information? Certainly he must have known by that time that the driver of the other vehicle was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Why did he with hold that information? Further, it was obvious from his subsequent testimony in court that Mr. Campbell had found liquor bottles, beer cans, and other "evidence'" of drinking when he searched Ollie's room the night of the accident, a full day before he told the family by phone Ollie had not been drinking and just three days before he told them the same thing in person. It is possible that Ollie's father has been intentionally misled by Mr. Campbell.
5. How could Mr. Campbell report the details of the cause of Ollie's death ("...it just tore a big hole in his heart, and he bled to death internally...") following the autopsy? Why did he not know that Ollie's gut (as logic would imply) would be full of enough alcohol to make him as drunk as the blood work apparently indicated he was?
6. Why was there no mention in the autopsy report of alcohol as a factor, or a condition in Ollie's death? Caffeine was mentioned, but not alcohol.  Why?
7. Immediately following Mr. Sutherland's meeting with Mr. Campbell, he met with Officer Baldwin and another highway patrol officer, who told him essentially the same story Mr. Campbell told him. They emphasized black ice, inappropriate equipment, and uncommon bad luck--but they volunteered to Mr. Sutherland that alcohol did not seem to be a factor. They did not indicate to him that Ollie had been operating his vehicle unsafely, inappropriately, or recklessly and they certainly did not state, suggest or speculate that Ollie was rounding that curve, on black ice, at nearly 70 mph, as Mr. Daily's reconstruction would have it. The family would like to know what caused them to reassess their thinking later on. Similarly, the family would be very interested in knowing why they did not mention to Ollie's father that the other driver in the accident was possibly driving under the influence. Certainly he knew, because it is clear from his own statements and deposition that he discussed the matter prior to his meeting with Ollie's father.
8. It is still not understood why Bob Campbell reported to Ollie's parents that the accident victims in the other vehicle were an older couple. He described the injuries to those victims (crushed foot, facial injuries, scalp injuries, concussion, etc.,) in some detail, but misrepresented (whether intentionally or not) the ages and the number of people in the Yearsley vehicle. It is curious behavior in an official elected to uncover, analyze, document, and report such details. If it were understandable, the family would appreciate knowing how it is, and what makes it understandable or acceptable from a procedural perspective.
9. A deputy sheriff treated Ollie's parents very kindly and humanely in his Jackson office while seeking information shortly after they arrived in town. His demeanor cooled considerably and both his voice and body language took a threatened and anxious quality later in their conversation when he was asked how to find the hospital where the surviving victims were located. He seemed so alarmed by the inquiry that the Sutherland's explained to him they wanted to visit the "older couple" who had been hospitalized for the purposes of expressing their concern, and determining what assistance they might be able to offer, and try to define their role in the matter as Ollie's parents. The deputy turned pale and told them, in effect, that that's the last thing in the world they wanted to do and to drop that idea. Ollie’s father asked for his reasoning and the deputy just said that would be a very inadvisable thing to do, abruptly changed the subject and began redirecting their attention to other matters. Upon reflection, it is a very curious response and there appears to be no logical (or innocent) reason for it. Perhaps the deputy could explain if asked again under more formal conditions. Is he in a position to reveal if he had discussed the case following the accident and prior to their visit to his office?
10. Probably unrelated to the accident in any way whatsoever is a set of curious coincidences involving significant people as role players in the handling and outcome of the accident. We refer to the subsequent reassignment of Trooper Baldwin, the retirement of Trooper Wilson, vacation of the County Prosecutor's office by Tim Day, and Andy Mixel's decision to leave State Farm Mutual Insurance company (and to move out of the state).  Under a reinvestigation, it is assumed that Steve Weichman could arrange to have these folks come back to Jackson to clarify their roles and contributions, should he decide to do so.