Bruce Jenner Becoming a Woman and more...

[redheadedgal]

The scar is along his jawline so I suspect it is from a jaw recontouring procedure (Mandibular angle reduction) to make his jaw appear less square and more oval. From this picture is looks like a successful outcome.

i don't believe the entire jaw line would have to be opened to perform a contour procedure... http://www.drspiegel.com/mandible-contouring-surgery/

is it possible it's just foundation and a bad blending job?

 

[SStarr33]

The scar is along his jawline so I suspect it is from a jaw recontouring procedure (Mandibular angle reduction) to make his jaw appear less square and more oval. From this picture is looks like a successful outcome.

No reason to use that approach to do this surgery--they would make the incisions inside the mouth.

 

[Softail]

Bruce Jenner Likely To Avoid Charges ... Cops Say 'Driving HUA' (Head Up *advertiser censored*)

If you're a gambler, you should bet that Bruce Jenner will NOT be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter, because his screw up was driving HUA ... law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

Sources familiar with investigating the fatal crash on PCH earlier this month tell us ... conventional wisdom is 60/40 AGAINST criminal prosecution. One source says it's more like 70/30.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/25/bruce...a-vehicular-manslaughter-crash/#ixzz3SlMYSuOW

 

[SStarr33]

http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/24/bruce-jenner-speed-crash-black-box-car-accident/

Bruce Jenner was traveling at 38 miles an hour when he struck the Lexus on Pacific Coast Highway earlier this month ... according to data retrieved from his SUV.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Bruce Jenner Likely To Avoid Charges ... Cops Say 'Driving HUA' (Head Up *advertiser censored*)

If you're a gambler, you should bet that Bruce Jenner will NOT be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter, because his screw up was driving HUA ... law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

Sources familiar with investigating the fatal crash on PCH earlier this month tell us ... conventional wisdom is 60/40 AGAINST criminal prosecution. One source says it's more like 70/30.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/25/bruce...a-vehicular-manslaughter-crash/#ixzz3SlMYSuOW

Also from your link:

We're told the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. investigation is pretty much complete, and after the reports are written it will be submitted to the L.A. County D.A. for review. Our sources say the Sheriff's Dept. in all probability will not make a recommendation on prosecution.

 

[SStarr33]

Bruce Jenner Likely To Avoid Charges ... Cops Say 'Driving HUA' (Head Up *advertiser censored*)

If you're a gambler, you should bet that Bruce Jenner will NOT be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter, because his screw up was driving HUA ... law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

Sources familiar with investigating the fatal crash on PCH earlier this month tell us ... conventional wisdom is 60/40 AGAINST criminal prosecution. One source says it's more like 70/30.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/25/bruce...a-vehicular-manslaughter-crash/#ixzz3SlMYSuOW

How can they say he was not going too fast? Seems to me that goes without saying. If he wasn't going so fast, he would not have killed Kim.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

How can they say he was not going too fast? Seems to me that goes without saying. If he wasn't going so fast, he would not have killed Kim.

From the link you posted a couple posts up...

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ, the Sensing Diagnostic Module (data recorder) shows Bruce was traveling between 46 and 47 MPH when he slammed on his brakes.

So I guess that's how they can say he wasn't going too fast.

 

[SStarr33]

From the link you posted a couple posts up...

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ, the Sensing Diagnostic Module (data recorder) shows Bruce was traveling between 46 and 47 MPH when he slammed on his brakes.

So I guess that's how they can say he wasn't going too fast.

Like I said.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From the link you posted a couple posts up...

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ, the Sensing Diagnostic Module (data recorder) shows Bruce was traveling between 46 and 47 MPH when he slammed on his brakes.

So I guess that's how they can say he wasn't going too fast.

However was he accounting for the extra load and trailer behind him?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

However was he accounting for the extra load and trailer behind him?

I have no idea. I haven't seen his version of events.

We do know his trailer had brakes.

 

[nrdsb4]

Because Bruce is not known to be a man of questionable intentions, and seems to be the type of person with common sense, a good work ethic, kind disposition, etc., I'm going to guess that this accident occurred due to the unfortunate lack of attention to what was happening in front of him. I suspect that Bruce was distracted for some reason, was not maintaining the proper distance to begin with, failed to account for the load he was carrying, and maybe was going too fast given the heavy load, traffic at the time, and road conditions, and sadly found himself in a position in which he was not able to compensate for all of the above factors.

For this reason, I believe he will probably be sued for negligence, but will not be prosecuted as a criminal.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Like I said.

You asked a question. I provided an answer using your link. He was within the speed limit. He was not drunk. He was not high. He was not texting or on the phone that we know of. He tried to avoid the collision by steering right. He hit the brakes hard.
That will all come into play when the DA gets the case.
So IMO nothing that we have seen shows gross negligence.
IMO it was an unfortunate accident that could happen to anybody.



I provided a link to a CA case a few days ago for reference.
Unlike BJ, the guy admitted to looking at his phone for a few seconds. And he had traces of pot in his system.
Killed 2 people. Severely injured 3 or 4 more. Sentenced to 1 year. And we all know how that was going to be reduced.

JMO

 

[nrdsb4]

You asked a question. I provided an answer using your link. He was within the speed limit. He was not drunk. He was not high. He was not texting or on the phone that we know of. He tried to avoid the collision by steering right. He hit the brakes hard.
That will all come into play when the DA gets the case.
So IMO nothing that we have seen shows gross negligence.
IMO it was an unfortunate accident that could happen to anybody.



I provided a link to a CA case a few days ago for reference.
Unlike BJ, the guy admitted to looking at his phone for a few seconds. And he had traces of pot in his system.
Killed 2 people. Severely injured 3 or 4 more. Sentenced to 1 year. And we all know how that was going to be reduced.

JMO

The problem Bruce has is that it will always come back to the issue of maintaining a safe distance. By definition, a safe distance means the distance which is required to stop without hitting the car in front of you, even if that car comes to an abrupt stop. If it's raining, one is required to slow down and increase the safe distance, if one is pulling a trailer, legally one has the duty to increase the distance behind to account for this, etc. If you break hard and hit the car in front of you, most times it will be determined that the reason hitting the brakes wasn't good enough was because you were following too close given the conditions at the time.

I like Bruce, and I am sure he is so upset and traumatized about this incident, but I don't think he gets away from that premise in any civil lawsuit.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The problem Bruce has is that it will always come back to the issue of maintaining a safe distance. By definition, a safe distance means the distance which is required to stop without hitting the car in front of you, even if that car comes to an abrupt stop. If it's raining, one is required to slow down and increase the safe distance, if one is pulling a trailer, legally one has the duty to increase the distance behind to account for this, etc. If you break hard and hit the car in front of you, most times it will be determined that the reason hitting the brakes wasn't good enough was because you were following too close given the conditions at the time.

I like Bruce, and I am sure he is so upset and traumatized about this incident, but I don't think he gets away from that premise in any civil lawsuit.

I work in claims. I understand how it works.

Rear end collisions happen every day. It's very sad and unfortunate that someone lost their life. It could happen to anyone.

But the investigation is ongoing so we don't know all of the details. Most of what we have heard is coming from "unnamed sources". And CA is a comparative fault state. Every little detail will be taken into account
That's why they were on scene for approximately 9 hours. And that's why they haven't concluded the investigation. It's not always as simple as "all rear end collisions are 100% the fault of the last driver".

The accident from start to finish happened in less than three seconds. I'm sure BJ would do anything for a re-do.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

WOWZERS----I was just standing 2 feet away from him. First time I have seen him here at Westlake Village Starbucks since his accident. His hair was back in a low ponytail, as usual, but it looks longer than I had remembered. No nail polish, no lip gloss. :wink: He was dressed very 'masculine---dark blue khakis, navy blue sweater, dark baseball cap, Raybans. He looked like he was trying to stay under the radar. He got into a car that was being driven by someone else, but had tinted windows so I could not see who. He has probably hired a driver. I would if I were him.

 

[SStarr33]

You asked a question. I provided an answer using your link. He was within the speed limit. He was not drunk. He was not high. He was not texting or on the phone that we know of. He tried to avoid the collision by steering right. He hit the brakes hard.
That will all come into play when the DA gets the case.
So IMO nothing that we have seen shows gross negligence.
IMO it was an unfortunate accident that could happen to anybody.



I provided a link to a CA case a few days ago for reference.
Unlike BJ, the guy admitted to looking at his phone for a few seconds. And he had traces of pot in his system.
Killed 2 people. Severely injured 3 or 4 more. Sentenced to 1 year. And we all know how that was going to be reduced.

JMO

Sorry, but he killed Kim because he rammed into her from behind while she was stopped for a light. If he couldn't stop, he was going to fast. It's just logic.

 

[SwampMama]

I have no idea. I haven't seen his version of events.

We do know his trailer had brakes.

I would like to know if those brakes were set properly and working properly.

My husband often tows farm equipment and hay and has a trailer with brakes. i asked him about towing a trailer and the brakes and such. He said that the brakes on the trailer need to be set based upon the braking system in the vehicle and on the weight of the load being towed. For instance, if the trailer brakes did not stop the trailer at the same rate that the vehicle was stopping then the weight of the trailer could push the vehicle. That could account for why Bruce's vehicle hit the car off to the side of it rather than straight at the middle of the rear of it.

But all in all, it was Bruce's responsibility to see that the brakes were set properly, that he could come to stop in enough time, that he was paying attention to the road ahead.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Sorry, but he killed Kim because he rammed into her from behind while she was stopped for a light. If he couldn't stop, he was going to fast. It's just logic.

Maybe your logic.
We have not heard the details of the accident.
He was within the speed limit. And for whatever reason (distraction/road conditions/sudden stop/mechanical malfunction/weight of his trailer) he rear ended her. For whatever reason (pushed at an angle/turned wheels/brakes not being pushed) she went in the other lane of travel.

Saying he killed Kim is a play on words to make him into a bad person. There was an accident. She was killed. Mistakes happen and accidents happen. There are a lot of factors involved. And unless you have seen a final investigative report, perhaps your logic is based on a whole lot of speculation.

I read she was not stopped but slowly moving. Did you read that she was stopped?

We know (from unnamed sources-so grain of salt) the impact MPH was 38.

JMO

 

[SStarr33]

Maybe your logic.
We have not heard the details of the accident.
He was within the speed limit. And for whatever reason (distraction/road conditions/sudden stop/mechanical malfunction/weight of his trailer) he rear ended her. For whatever reason (pushed at an angle/turned wheels/brakes not being pushed) she went in the other lane of travel.

Saying he killed Kim is a play on words to make him into a bad person. There was an accident. She was killed. Mistakes happen and accidents happen. There are a lot of factors involved. And unless you have seen a final investigative report, perhaps your logic is based on a whole lot of speculation.

I read she was not stopped but slowly moving. Did you read that she was stopped?

We know (from unnamed sources-so grain of salt) the impact MPH was 38.

JMO

The photos I've seen show she was stopped.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Oh I forgot we can look at a few photos and determine all aspects of this collision.

The accident investigators sure did waste about 9 hours at the scene and a month of investigative work.
Measuring, interviewing. Should have just looked at 3-4 photos.

:waiting: