OK Foss lake Discovery

[December]

What if the Camaro motor mounts were broken BEFORE the car entered the water? The self perpetuating chain of events that happen when these mounts break are what forced Chevrolet to issue a recall in 1971. It could also explain why the car was found in neutral as it was the only way to stop the acceleration.

http://www.autosafety.org/chevrolet-motor-mounts

Engine mount breakage causes a self-perpetuating chain of events. When the left-side mount breaks, engine torque causes the engine to rise up, pulling open the accelerator linkage; this causes even more upward movement, and consequently more opening of the accelerator linkage, until the engine's movement is stopped by the closed hood. Moreover, the engine's upward movement pulls the power brake booster vacuum hose loose, thus greatly increasing the force needed to stop the car.

Could the person who owned the car before Jimmy realize that something really bad was starting to happen to his car? This could be why he got rid of it. I wonder if Jimmy/his parents got a particularly good deal on that car?

 

[wfgodot]

........................................^^^^^^^

excellent question

 

[killarney rose]

Also,what if from the impact one of the occupants bumped the gearshift knocking it out of gear?


I'm not buying it was anything but poor judgement, driver inexperience, tragic accident...

 

[December]

Also,what if from the impact one of the occupants bumped the gearshift knocking it out of gear?


I'm not buying it was anything but poor judgement, driver inexperience, tragic accident...

If something was wrong with the car, that would add to all of the things you listed.

I do not mean someone sold the car deliberately thinking a person would be killed in it. I just mean someone knew their car was developing problems and got rid of it as quickly as possible because they did not want the repair bills.

 

[killarney rose]

If something was wrong with the car, that would add to all of the things you listed.

I do not mean someone sold the car deliberately thinking a person would be killed in it. I just mean someone knew their car was developing problems and got rid of it as quickly as possible because they did not want the repair bills.

I should've included a possible defect or problem with the car too. Add that to the other things I listed. I'm just not buying into someone killed them.

 

[CarlK90245]

The car was bought brand new. It was a 1969 Camaro, and they went missing in 1970. Jimmy Williams had owned the car for only a couple weeks, so it would be unlikely that there were mechanical problems.

 

[December]

The car was bought brand new. It was a 1969 Camaro, and they went missing in 1970. Jimmy Williams had owned the car for only a couple weeks, so it would be unlikely that there were mechanical problems.

Are we sure it was a brand new car? Never driven at all by anyone (other than a few miles.. as in less than 20). I thought it was a recent model used car that had been owned only a short time by someone else. I wouldn't be surprised if it was relatively low miles.. as in less than 1,000 or 2,000.

And the mechanical problems are not from wear and tear.. it's a defect from the manufacturer. So, that is a little different.

Some guys obsessively read car magazines. If this car was owned briefly by someone and that guy kept up with such things, he might have traded it off in a hurry after he realized that the cars came with a built-in defect (from reading magazines or getting info from other people who knew cars). But, I do not mean that this guy realized this defect could be dangerous. Just that he worried it might wind up being expensive. Or make people laugh at him for buying a defective car.

Probably the car seemed to be just fine as Jimmy had only owned briefly (I thought it was like six days). I imagine someone looked the car over either before or after he bought it. Maybe not as it was so new, but maybe just out of the fact it was a really cool car.

I wonder if it can be discovered if anyone did?

But, I am not outlining a plot to kill Jimmy. I am saying this may be a factor in an accident.

I just mean that this defect with the car may have made it perform in a weird way all of a sudden. It was a pretty serious defect. Cars performing in a weird way at just the wrong moment can and does get people killed. This cannot always be foreseen especially when it is a defect from the manufacturer.

 

[December]

Also, a 1969 car in 1970 is not really new. Jimmy got it in the fall of 1970. It was a 1969 model.

If it was a for real new car (never titled, extremely low miles.. less than 20) then it sat on the car lot for an awfully long time. That is not a good sign. Why would anyone buy such a car?

It may have been a demo car or something. Or it may have been owned by someone briefly.

But, my first new car I bought in the fall. It was the next year's model.. so if I was Jimmy getting a new car in fall of 1970 then I would have gotten a 1971 model car. That is a new car.

ETA
And it had SIX miles on it.

ETA ETA
Well, I guess a teenager might buy such a car, they don't know. But, they know it is 1970 and not 1969 anymore.. so IDK...

 

[killarney rose]

A 69 Camaro would have been new to the public late summer of 68, the 70s were released late, causing many to be referred to as a 70 1/2.

The 69 were the last year of the first generation body style, the 70 the first of the second generation. There's an obvious difference in body style from the 69. It's possible the 69 could've been sold new during 1970 but the actually 70 body style went on sale Feb. 26. 1970, so this particulate car, if he had only owned it for 6 weeks would have been bought as a used 69. The 69s that were sold new in 70 were not actually titled as a 1970.

 

[December]

A 69 Camaro would have been new to the public late summer of 68, the 70s were released late, causing many to be referred to as a 70 1/2.

The 69 were the last year of the first generation body style, the 70 the first of the second generation. There's an obvious difference in body style from the 69. It's possible the 69 could've been sold new during 1970 but the actually 70 body style went on sale Feb. 26. 1970, so this particulate car, if he had only owned it for 6 weeks would have been bought as a used 69. The 69s that were sold new in 70 were not actually titled as a 1970.

I thought it was six days not six weeks. Seriously, I thought he JUST got this car and it was a first chance to really show it off to his friends.

Thank you for the information about this particular model of cars. I really did not know that. So, I very much appreciate you telling me about it. That is interesting.

It also points to potential problems with that model that occurred during manufacture. And how people at the time might not have completely realized such a thing. So, this is all making more sense now.

Sounds like the manufacture, o.k. Chevrolet, knew something was wrong with the car. But, they thought they had fixed it. So, they finally put the cars out. But, after people drove them for a while, the problems began to show up.

However, sometimes with cars that get recalled, there are degrees of how bad the defect is and how it shows up to the people who own the cars. It could be Jimmy's had a particularly bad case of the defect.

If the car really was new, then it would look just fine and not show up until he was driving it around. Maybe not even until he got it up to certain speeds or whatever.

 

[killarney rose]

It could've been six days, I didnt go back up thread to see.i went by. My not too good memory.

 

[killarney rose]

http://www.autosafety.org/chevrolet-motor-mounts

This link details what can happen if the left motor mount were to break as the defect could cause them to. So what if the kids were doing what kids in a muscle car do...drive a little too fast....do donuts on the boat ramp...rev the engine in forward and reverse....the motions cause the weak motor mounts to give way and the result is the car in the water. I really think this should be looked into rather than this being a murder. It sounds to me like the perfect storm of events for these kids to end up in the lake.

 

[December]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9851105&postcount=2"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - OK OK - Jimmy Williams (16), Sayre, 20 Nov 1970[/ame]

Williams bought the used Camaro just six days before he went missing,

^^^^ this info comes from here:

Sayre Record and Beckham County Democrat newspaper

Then there is this CNN media link my computer hissed at me and refused to open. Well, maybe not hissed, but it wouldn't open it. However, my computer is being a pita this morning. So...
CNN link:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/19/us/oklahoma-lake-bodies/

CNN gleefully reported wrong info.. so I will try to find a better source for six days.

 

[killarney rose]

It doesn't matter, I probably got it wrong. Bottom line is, he had the 69 Camaro with the factory defect regardless of when he bought it.

 

[December]

http://www.autosafety.org/chevrolet-motor-mounts

This link details what can happen if the left motor mount were to break as the defect could cause them to. So what if the kids were doing what kids in a muscle car do...drive a little too fast....do donuts on the boat ramp...rev the engine in forward and reverse....the motions cause the weak motor mounts to give way and the result is the car in the water. I really think this should be looked into rather than this being a murder. It sounds to me like the perfect storm of events for these kids to end up in the lake.

Yes, I agree.

I took the "murder" thing from the Telegraph to be them taking some creative license. It sounded more to me from reading the quotes that the relative just wanted a thorough investigation. Which, I agree, there should be.

Finding a problem with the car, for example, is a good piece to the puzzle. Yes, it leads to proving as you said a perfect storm of events that caused this accident to be fatal, but it is proof rather than just making a snap judgment.

If Jimmy Walker was my loved one, I surely would want a description to how this accident occurred. With this new information, it really is coming together in my head as to how it might have happened.

One of the cars, and I want to say it was the Camaro, someone was not all of the way inside. If this is true, maybe they did try to get out, but were disoriented from the sudden impact with the water and just did not make it.

 

[December]

It doesn't matter, I probably got it wrong. Bottom line is, he had the 69 Camaro with the factory defect regardless of when he bought it.

My computer is acting up so I left it alone for a while. I didn't see your other post when I posted.

But, it is more just to generally clear that up not a slam against you.

Because if he had it only six days, then maybe he hadn't been able to drive it that much yet what with school and his job.

ETA
So, I mean.. sorry, I wasn't trying to be mean.

 

[killarney rose]

Yes, I agree.

I took the "murder" thing from the Telegraph to be them taking some creative license. It sounded more to me from reading the quotes that the relative just wanted a thorough investigation. Which, I agree, there should be.

Finding a problem with the car, for example, is a good piece to the puzzle. Yes, it leads to proving as you said a perfect storm of events that caused this accident to be fatal, but it is proof rather than just making a snap judgment.

If Jimmy Walker was my loved one, I surely would want a description to how this accident occurred. With this new information, it really is coming together in my head as to how it might have happened.

One of the cars, and I want to say it was the Camaro, someone was not all of the way inside. If this is true, maybe they did try to get out, but were disoriented from the sudden impact with the water and just did not make it.

For their piece of mind, they need to have their suspicions put to rest if they suspect murder. But they need to have a professional armed with the knowledge of the factory problem to really take a hard look at the car.

If they were already gunning the engine, that mount broke causing the throttle to stick open, that explains a lot.and it explains the condition of some things found under the hood

 

[December]

http://www.autosafety.org/sites/default/files/imce_staff_uploads/GM 1971 Engine Mount 573 Clean.pdf

^^^from Killarney Rose's link...

Basically, GM was aware of this problem in 1968.

Reports started flying in 1971.

The public knew squat (officially, some people had surely figured it out) until 1974.

So, Jimmy Walker would not have known any potential problem as per what Killarney's Rose posted and this link.

The problem caused the car to accelerate and go out of gear. The acceleration needed some force to stop it. Therefore if a kid is gleefully driving his car around a lake, and this acceleration/gear problem occurs then this is going to be a fatal accident.

Although, the gear thing it like to go from D to L. But, Jimmy might have managed to get it to N before it crashed into the lake.

 

[December]

For their piece of mind, they need to have their suspicions put to rest if they suspect murder. But they need to have a professional armed with the knowledge of the factory problem to really take a hard look at the car.

If they were already gunning the engine, that mount broke causing the throttle to stick open, that explains a lot.and it explains the condition of some things found under the hood

Yes, you are exactly right.

They might have hit the water going very fast. Which might have knocked them all out for some time.

 

[December]

This is so sad. If not for this stupid defect, they would have probably just had a lot of fun and then gone on home that night.