Found Deceased CA - Kiely Rodni missing from Party Near Prosser Family Campground in Truckee #10

[evilwise]

Just curious if this applies when the victim is not of legal age? ( in regards to responsibility being attributed to the driver only) Being under 18 yo, wouldn’t there be a higher level of responsibility to those who provided alcohol or marijuana in case of a fatal accident? I can look for this info later, just thought I’d throw it out there in case anyone knows.

I think @steeltowngirl has located a California law that, while not actually answering your question does sort of address responsibility in the state for protecting minors:

Maybe if they can locate a licensed establishment that sold alcohol?

Section 25602.1 Business and Professions Code (Supplying of alcoholic beverage to intoxicated minor):

Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 25602, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death against any person licensed, or required to be licensed, pursuant to Section 23300, or any person authorized by the federal government to sell alcoholic beverages on a military base or other federal enclave, who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage, and any other person who sells, or causes to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor where the furnishing, sale or giving of that beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained by that person.

Section 25658(a) Business and Professions Code (Sale to a Minor):

Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 years is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Section 25602.1 - Cause of action against person who sells, furnishes, or gives alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated minor, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 25602.1 - Cause of action against person who sells, furnishes, or gives alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated minor, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

And while I doubt that Kiely bought any alcohol herself at all, the part of the wording of the law that jumps out at me as telling is that a licensed liquor distributor can be held liable in automobile deaths of they sold "any alcoholic beverage to any obviously intoxicated minor". To me, that little qualifier in the law about licensed liquor dealers culpability suggests that regular people are held to an even lower level of responsibility.

 

[IDK]

I think @steeltowngirl has located a California law that, while not actually answering your question does sort of address responsibility in the state for protecting minors:


And while I doubt that Kiely bought any alcohol herself at all, the part of the wording of the law that jumps out at me as telling is that a licensed liquor distributor can be held liable in automobile deaths of they sold "any alcoholic beverage to any obviously intoxicated minor". To me, that little qualifier in the law about licensed liquor dealers culpability suggests that regular people are held to an even lower level of responsibility.

I appreciate that you teased out the relevant info!! Thank you for clarifying the guidelines for when alcohol is sold by a licensed distributor to a minor.

 

[evilwise]

I appreciate that you teased out the relevant info!! Thank you for clarifying the guidelines for when alcohol is sold by a licensed distributor to a minor.

Well, law can be confusing and counter-intuitive. Laws can be made that seemingly contradict earlier ones that remain on the books so just because a licensed liquor distributor is only culpable in negligent manslaughter is they provide alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor we can't conclusively say there isn't some other law buried somewhere that provides for people who brought alcohol to a party to also be culpable - and there might be different laws that can be applied to illegal narcotics but my guess would be that there aren't.

And still, even if someone is only criminally guilty of a misdemeanor - or these days even without any conviction at all it's still pretty easy to destroy someone's life over practically any single mistake. It won't bring Kiely back though - and it won't stop young people from getting wasted at parties and driving into lakes, either. That's a problem that needs to be prevented, not cured.

 

[RedHaus]

Some interesting NIH articles on drowning pathology and forensics.

1) NIH: Pathology in the Forensics Dx of Drowning, 2003
"The diagnosis of drowning is one of the most difficult in forensic pathology. Drowning is death through the aspiration of fluid into the air passages. Signs of immersion only demonstrate submersion of the body for a period of time but are not signs of drowning. The best signs of drowning are froth around the mouth and nostrils and lung distension. Lung histology in drowning victims shows non-specific lesions such as "emphysema aquosum" and alveolar edema."

2) NIH: Drowning Forensics re: Without Aspiration, 1999
"It has been reported that 10-15% of drowning victims do not aspirate water. We have revisited the original studies quoted to reach this conclusion and find it is without foundation. Sudden cardiac standstill is known to occur on land and, therefore, may also occur when the victim is in water. In the absence of the common finding of significant pulmonary edema in the victim's respiratory system, to conclude his or her death was caused by "drowning without aspiration" is unwise. All causes of sudden death that might occur in which respiration may not take place should receive serious consideration when examining bodies with such findings that are found in water."

I encourage each of us to find and read the 18 page NCSO Coroner Report and compare it to these gold standards.

 

[rhino]

Some interesting NIH articles on drowning pathology and forensics.

1) NIH: Pathology in the Forensics Dx of Drowning, 2003
"The diagnosis of drowning is one of the most difficult in forensic pathology. Drowning is death through the aspiration of fluid into the air passages. Signs of immersion only demonstrate submersion of the body for a period of time but are not signs of drowning. The best signs of drowning are froth around the mouth and nostrils and lung distension. Lung histology in drowning victims shows non-specific lesions such as "emphysema aquosum" and alveolar edema."

2) NIH: Drowning Forensics re: Without Aspiration, 1999
"It has been reported that 10-15% of drowning victims do not aspirate water. We have revisited the original studies quoted to reach this conclusion and find it is without foundation. Sudden cardiac standstill is known to occur on land and, therefore, may also occur when the victim is in water. In the absence of the common finding of significant pulmonary edema in the victim's respiratory system, to conclude his or her death was caused by "drowning without aspiration" is unwise. All causes of sudden death that might occur in which respiration may not take place should receive serious consideration when examining bodies with such findings that are found in water."

I encourage each of us to find and read the 18 page NCSO Coroner Report and compare it to these gold standards.

These appear to be abstracts, from journal articles from the last couple of decades? Not ‘gold standards’? Or am I misunderstanding?

I did also find part of the first abstract you linked, but didn’t choose to quote, interesting

“ The diagnosis of drowning is based on police investigations, forensic autopsy, microscopic analysis, and biochemical tests, but never solely on pathology findings.”

 

[RedHaus]

These appear to be abstracts, from journal articles from the last couple of decades? Not ‘gold standards’? Or am I misunderstanding?

I did also find part of the first abstract you linked, but didn’t choose to quote, interesting

“ The diagnosis of drowning is based on police investigations, forensic autopsy, microscopic analysis, and biochemical tests, but never solely on pathology findings.”

Fair, @rhino. I get your points.

So I'll bring us back to this (full) article from 2018, which I postulate is a gold standard (excerpted from abstract):
Academic Forensic Pathology, Investigation of Drowning Deaths: A Practical Review, 3/2018 (Warning: graphic images)

"A significant number of water-related deaths are attributed to accidental drowning, while a smaller but still significant number represent suicidal or homicidal drowning. Others involve a combination of drowning precipitated by injury, intoxication, or environmental extremes.

"Still others involve victims that die from injury, intoxication, or a natural disease entity of such significance as to preclude the drowning process, while near or in water."

While there may be an initial presumption that all water-related deaths are accidental drownings, other possibilities must be considered in the investigation of these types of deaths, as drowning as a cause of death is a diagnosis based on the exclusion of other potential causes."

Given what we know about the investigation from MSM and death last summer of a another local teenage girl, I would hope the autopsy of KR included ruling out trauma to the brain (e.g. possible fighting) and Fentanyl (e.g. what killed other girl).

 

[rhino]

Fair, @rhino. I get your points.

So I'll bring us back to this (full) article from 2018, which I postulate is a gold standard (excerpted from abstract):

No, that’s a review article? I’m not sure if it’s just a terminology thing, but in medicine/scientific research a ‘gold standard’ is the specific diagnostic technique which is the one most widely accepted by the medical/scientific field as the best one available at that time.

Ignore me if you are using gold standard colloquially just to mean interesting research/literature reviews, but medical literature + gold standard made me think you were referring to a particular test that was carried out on autopsy.

 

[RedHaus]

No, that’s a review article? I’m not sure if it’s just a terminology thing, but in medicine/scientific research a ‘gold standard’ is the specific diagnostic technique which is the one most widely accepted by the medical/scientific field as the best one available at that time.

Ignore me if you are using gold standard colloquially just to mean interesting research/literature reviews, but medical literature + gold standard made me think you were referring to a particular test that was carried out on autopsy.

Yes, perhaps a better reference to this article is it is a scholarly review of best practices in drowning death investigations.

With that I say we drop this for the good of the order.

 

[5W's]

Not all people sound drunk. I myself as a teenager was many times absolutely hammered, barely walking, and still I both talk with my mother on phone and in person, and she never had a clue.

Then again I know people who start to slur after a one or two drinks.

I am saying that there is an idication of an individual being drunk noted by those who know them best and can tell by the slightest difference if the loved one is clued in and looking for it. Perhaps in your situation there was a difference as your loved ones knew 100% you are safe.

 

[5W's]

Kiely sent her mom a text message. I don't see how her mom could tell if she was inebriated from that.

Mom of missing teen recalls last conversations before she vanished

Kiely Rodni, 16, was last seen early Saturday around 12:30 a.m. local time near the Prosser Family Campground in Truckee, California.

abc7ny.com

Ok fine it was a text but still it was coherent.

 

[ifindedout]

I've been wondering, and I'm sure others have as well, why Kiely didn't just use her iPhone to navigate out of the area. Apple Maps doesn't have the detail of Google Maps when it comes to dirt roads and trails, and/or does not update as frequently. Taking a look at a screenshot of the campground from Apple Maps,

we see that at 1 inch = 375 feet, only the main road from the campground is visible. But if we zoom in to 1:125, other roads appear, including the road she was on until that fork in the road:

Interestingly, Apple doesn't delineate that road beyond the fork, probably because it isn't passable past there at maximum reservoir capacity.
Now Google Maps shows more "roads" at all scales:

But does this difference between apps and platforms really matter? IMO, not really. Apple Maps would provide the basic information to show her that she needed to head west to get out of the campground and back on the highway. That is, if she was using it....
I believe Kiely wasn't using a GPS or map app because of the impaired state she was in. She may also not have trusted Apple to show the road(s) she was on. Additionally, she was probably task-saturated, absorbed with texting mom (and others), as well as using her eyes to see through the darkness and (possibly) mist/fog on and close to the water, in order to get home at a time when she shouldn't have been on the road at all at her age. I doubt she was directionally dyslexic by nature, because I know some people who are, and they absolutely depend on GPS at all times to get them where they are driving. But her state of mind may have made her so.

Speaking of fog, a check of the 2013 CR-V LX specs (the manual is no help here), and of KR's VIN, shows that the LX trim level, even with AWD, does not include fog lamps; they were only available on the EX and EX-L (aftermarket upgrading of this kind is never worth it--BTW I couldn't find a decent head-on view of her car). This means that Kiely was probably not able to see as well as she could have with comparable vehicles, including the legendary Subaru Outback. If there was fog over the lake, it could've hidden the water until the last second. Remember that would be impossible to see fog on the lake from the fire cam because 1) IR cameras, by definition, see through fog and smoke, and 2) the pitch-black night footage has been overlain with daylight imagery for viewing convenience.

We have "driven" these roads much earlier in the general thread. But this was long before the firecam footage, which showed her pausing at the intersection before making that fateful turn. When she came to the fork in the road, Kiely should not have taken it at all--she should have turned around and gone back the way she came when she left her parking space. If she had been using her iPhone to navigate, it would have told her this, and gotten her out of the area.

MOO

 

[ItalyReader]

I've been wondering, and I'm sure others have as well, why Kiely didn't just use her iPhone to navigate out of the area. Apple Maps doesn't have the detail of Google Maps when it comes to dirt roads and trails, and/or does not update as frequently. Taking a look at a screenshot of the campground from Apple Maps,
View attachment 374256
we see that at 1 inch = 375 feet, only the main road from the campground is visible. But if we zoom in to 1:125, other roads appear, including the road she was on until that fork in the road:
View attachment 374255
Interestingly, Apple doesn't delineate that road beyond the fork, probably because it isn't passable past there at maximum reservoir capacity.
Now Google Maps shows more "roads" at all scales:
View attachment 374257
But does this difference between apps and platforms really matter? IMO, not really. Apple Maps would provide the basic information to show her that she needed to head west to get out of the campground and back on the highway. That is, if she was using it....
I believe Kiely wasn't using a GPS or map app because of the impaired state she was in. She may also not have trusted Apple to show the road(s) she was on. Additionally, she was probably task-saturated, absorbed with texting mom (and others), as well as using her eyes to see through the darkness and (possibly) mist/fog on and close to the water, in order to get home at a time when she shouldn't have been on the road at all at her age. I doubt she was directionally dyslexic by nature, because I know some people who are, and they absolutely depend on GPS at all times to get them where they are driving. But her state of mind may have made her so.

Speaking of fog, a check of the 2013 CR-V LX specs (the manual is no help here), and of KR's VIN, shows that the LX trim level, even with AWD, does not include fog lamps; they were only available on the EX and EX-L (aftermarket upgrading of this kind is never worth it--BTW I couldn't find a decent head-on view of her car). This means that Kiely was probably not able to see as well as she could have with comparable vehicles, including the legendary Subaru Outback. If there was fog over the lake, it could've hidden the water until the last second. Remember that would be impossible to see fog on the lake from the fire cam because 1) IR cameras, by definition, see through fog and smoke, and 2) the pitch-black night footage has been overlain with daylight imagery for viewing convenience.

We have "driven" these roads much earlier in the general thread. But this was long before the firecam footage, which showed her pausing at the intersection before making that fateful turn. When she came to the fork in the road, Kiely should not have taken it at all--she should have turned around and gone back the way she came when she left her parking space. If she had been using her iPhone to navigate, it would have told her this, and gotten her out of the area.

MOO

I use phone gps/nav tools regularly even in areas/roads I know, usually for timing or traffic reasons. So I can relate to someone who might use gps tools in their own areas.

But maybe she felt she didn’t need it, maybe she felt she knew the way. She was fairly close to home as I understand. MOO

 

[ifindedout]

I use phone gps/nav tools regularly even in areas/roads I know, usually for timing or traffic reasons. So I can relate to someone who might use gps tools in their own areas.

But maybe she felt she didn’t need it, maybe she felt she knew the way. She was fairly close to home as I understand. MOO

ITA about being close to home. However, "close to home" is where the majority of auto accidents anywhere tend to be clustered. A search for "accidents near home statistics" yields a multitude of sources for this, some from state DOTs, some from federal/national government, and many from private law firms. There are too many to choose from as a representative citation. YMMV as search engines will usually tend toward sources in one's own IP address area.
Had Kiely made it out of the Prosser Reservoir area, she would not have been home free by any means. She still would've had to negotiate, in her challenged state:

• 4 miles on CA 89, the last 1/2 mile of which contains 2 roundabouts*;
• 5.5 miles on I-80 (Exit 188B to Exit 184), the first mile being in the shadow of the CHP local office. Not a good place to be if DWI; and
• 7.5 miles on the one-lane road to her home. IMHO this would've been the most dangerous part of the journey, as it is long, winding and unpaved. Most critically, it passes through a narrow undercrossing that is best described as a culvert-ford that carries both the road and the creek beneath America's first transcontinental railroad line, now owned and operated by Union Pacific.

*the route Google chooses actually goes through a 3rd roundabout, leading to the Pioneer Trail and right in front of the CHP's local office. Also, Google's path isn't to be trusted on the road through the culvert to the lodge.

MOO

 

[cujenn81]

I've been wondering, and I'm sure others have as well, why Kiely didn't just use her iPhone to navigate out of the area. Apple Maps doesn't have the detail of Google Maps when it comes to dirt roads and trails, and/or does not update as frequently. Taking a look at a screenshot of the campground from Apple Maps,
View attachment 374256
we see that at 1 inch = 375 feet, only the main road from the campground is visible. But if we zoom in to 1:125, other roads appear, including the road she was on until that fork in the road:
View attachment 374255
Interestingly, Apple doesn't delineate that road beyond the fork, probably because it isn't passable past there at maximum reservoir capacity.
Now Google Maps shows more "roads" at all scales:
View attachment 374257
But does this difference between apps and platforms really matter? IMO, not really. Apple Maps would provide the basic information to show her that she needed to head west to get out of the campground and back on the highway. That is, if she was using it....
I believe Kiely wasn't using a GPS or map app because of the impaired state she was in. She may also not have trusted Apple to show the road(s) she was on. Additionally, she was probably task-saturated, absorbed with texting mom (and others), as well as using her eyes to see through the darkness and (possibly) mist/fog on and close to the water, in order to get home at a time when she shouldn't have been on the road at all at her age. I doubt she was directionally dyslexic by nature, because I know some people who are, and they absolutely depend on GPS at all times to get them where they are driving. But her state of mind may have made her so.

Speaking of fog, a check of the 2013 CR-V LX specs (the manual is no help here), and of KR's VIN, shows that the LX trim level, even with AWD, does not include fog lamps; they were only available on the EX and EX-L (aftermarket upgrading of this kind is never worth it--BTW I couldn't find a decent head-on view of her car). This means that Kiely was probably not able to see as well as she could have with comparable vehicles, including the legendary Subaru Outback. If there was fog over the lake, it could've hidden the water until the last second. Remember that would be impossible to see fog on the lake from the fire cam because 1) IR cameras, by definition, see through fog and smoke, and 2) the pitch-black night footage has been overlain with daylight imagery for viewing convenience.

We have "driven" these roads much earlier in the general thread. But this was long before the firecam footage, which showed her pausing at the intersection before making that fateful turn. When she came to the fork in the road, Kiely should not have taken it at all--she should have turned around and gone back the way she came when she left her parking space. If she had been using her iPhone to navigate, it would have told her this, and gotten her out of the area.

MOO

I’d be interested to know what Waze shows on their map/route. I literally don’t know a single person that uses Apple Maps to navigate anywhere. I have an iPhone, but I use Waze unless it’s acting buggy (which often happens during the first few weeks after an iOS update) — at which point, I’ll use Google Maps.

 

[ItalyReader]

ITA about being close to home. However, "close to home" is where the majority of auto accidents anywhere tend to be clustered. A search for "accidents near home statistics" yields a multitude of sources for this, some from state DOTs, some from federal/national government, and many from private law firms. There are too many to choose from as a representative citation. YMMV as search engines will usually tend toward sources in one's own IP address area.
Had Kiely made it out of the Prosser Reservoir area, she would not have been home free by any means. She still would've had to negotiate, in her challenged state:

• 4 miles on CA 89, the last 1/2 mile of which contains 2 roundabouts*;
• 5.5 miles on I-80 (Exit 188B to Exit 184), the first mile being in the shadow of the CHP local office. Not a good place to be if DWI; and
• 7.5 miles on the one-lane road to her home. IMHO this would've been the most dangerous part of the journey, as it is long, winding and unpaved. Most critically, it passes through a narrow undercrossing that is best described as a culvert-ford that carries both the road and the creek beneath America's first transcontinental railroad line, now owned and operated by Union Pacific.

*the route Google chooses actually goes through a 3rd roundabout, leading to the Pioneer Trail and right in front of the CHP's local office. Also, Google's path isn't to be trusted on the road through the culvert to the lodge.

MOO

Definitely agree.
I was thinking about why she may have chosen to use a nav, if that was the case. That maybe she had confidence to go without it. That maybe she had been at that location for other events and felt it was familiar and safe, she was comfortable with it. Sad.

 

[ifindedout]

I’d be interested to know what Waze shows on their map/route. I literally don’t know a single person that uses Apple Maps to navigate anywhere. I have an iPhone, but I use Waze unless it’s acting buggy (which often happens during the first few weeks after an iOS update) — at which point, I’ll use Google Maps.

Ask and ye shall receive:

 

[cujenn81]

Ask and ye shall receive:

Thank you!!

 

[RedHaus]

I have digested the 18 page Coroner's Report on KR's death and must accept the conclusion of accidental drowning. KR's body was too decomposed and had no obvious signs of OD or homicidal trauma to conclude otherwise.

That said, I still question how KR and her car ended up in Lake Prosser, especially with such limited intoxication?

In 1969 Mary Jo Kopechne's death was classified as accidental drowning as well. The "Chappaquiddick incident was a single-vehicle car crash... caused by ... Kennedy's negligence, and resulted in the death of... Kopechne...". Senator Kennedy later plead guilty to charges of 'leaving the scene of an accident' and publicly apologized.

So, until CHP releases their incident report I will continue to wonder if another person(s) was with KR or driving KR's car when it went into the lake. While the CHP report may shed light on whether there was someone in KR's passenger seat, could CHP determine how many people were in KR's car? Or if someone other than KR was driving her car?

I considered possible LE action to see if any of my musings actually matter for the proceedings of this case.

1. A Chappaquiddick Incident: If another driver is identified from the CHP report along with additional LE investigation of course, I suspect charges today would be more serious than for Kennedy 53 years ago, per these CA penal codes:

• PC 192 (c)(1): Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence
• PC 192 (c)(2): Misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter
• PC 191.5a and 191.5b: Vehicular Manslaughter and DUI (likely hard to prove post factum!)

2. Passengers with KR or Witnesses to KR's drowning: Per this 2017 ABC-10 Article: "While it's seems both shocking and cruel that a group of people could standby and do nothing as someone helplessly dies, there are no laws in [FL] or [CA] stating that a person is responsible for saving someone's life in a situation similar to the drowning incident [in article]."

• It seems this would absolve any passengers who escaped KR's sinking car and any witnesses on the shore, if any.

3. Anyone who provided KR with alcohol or THC, as many of us here believe, should face legal culpability because KR was under the legal age for both substances. But LE would first need to prove culprit(s) and requisite transaction(s).

While I believe there is plenty of moral misconduct precipitating KR's death, IMO, there appears to be a narrow path for law enforcement against any individual(s) in this case, if applicable. Of the three scenarios I outlined above, #1 would be the most tangible and the most serious. That is why, IMO, the CHP report is a key missing puzzle piece.

 

[SMK777]

I have digested the 18 page Coroner's Report on KR's death and must accept the conclusion of accidental drowning. KR's body was too decomposed and had no obvious signs of OD or homicidal trauma to conclude otherwise.

That said, I still question how KR and her car ended up in Lake Prosser, especially with such limited intoxication?

In 1969 Mary Jo Kopechne's death was classified as accidental drowning as well. The "Chappaquiddick incident was a single-vehicle car crash... caused by ... Kennedy's negligence, and resulted in the death of... Kopechne...". Senator Kennedy later plead guilty to charges of 'leaving the scene of an accident' and publicly apologized.

So, until CHP releases their incident report I will continue to wonder if another person(s) was with KR or driving KR's car when it went into the lake. While the CHP report may shed light on whether there was someone in KR's passenger seat, could CHP determine how many people were in KR's car? Or if someone other than KR was driving her car?

I considered possible LE action to see if any of my musings actually matter for the proceedings of this case.

1. A Chappaquiddick Incident: If another driver is identified from the CHP report along with additional LE investigation of course, I suspect charges today would be more serious than for Kennedy 53 years ago, per these CA penal codes:

• PC 192 (c)(1): Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence
• PC 192 (c)(2): Misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter
• PC 191.5a and 191.5b: Vehicular Manslaughter and DUI (likely hard to prove post factum!)

2. Passengers with KR or Witnesses to KR's drowning: Per this 2017 ABC-10 Article: "While it's seems both shocking and cruel that a group of people could standby and do nothing as someone helplessly dies, there are no laws in [FL] or [CA] stating that a person is responsible for saving someone's life in a situation similar to the drowning incident [in article]."

• It seems this would absolve any passengers who escaped KR's sinking car and any witnesses on the shore, if any.

3. Anyone who provided KR with alcohol or THC, as many of us here believe, should face legal culpability because KR was under the legal age for both substances. But LE would first need to prove culprit(s) and requisite transaction(s).

While I believe there is plenty of moral misconduct precipitating KR's death, IMO, there appears to be a narrow path for law enforcement against any individual(s) in this case, if applicable. Of the three scenarios I outlined above, #1 would be the most tangible and the most serious. That is why, IMO, the CHP report is a key missing puzzle piece.

Yes, those 3 you’ve listed are certainly all that remain, now that:

• pregnancy
• sexual assault
• head injury
• being strapped down
• overdose

all seem to have been eliminated as factors or motives.

Of course AWP’s insistence on how very suspicious this incident was, and their roadside assistance narrative, seem to have evaporated into thin air which is absolutely baffling.

What about failure to report an accident, leaving the scene of an accident, and obstruction of justice?
ETA: In retrospect the press conferences where LE kept saying, “Somebody saw something, somebody knows something” now ring true— as if they’d guessed this scenario, and knew it was not going to be prosecuted too severely. What a wild goose chase this case was.

 

[RANCH]

I have digested the 18 page Coroner's Report on KR's death and must accept the conclusion of accidental drowning. KR's body was too decomposed and had no obvious signs of OD or homicidal trauma to conclude otherwise.

That said, I still question how KR and her car ended up in Lake Prosser, especially with such limited intoxication?

In 1969 Mary Jo Kopechne's death was classified as accidental drowning as well. The "Chappaquiddick incident was a single-vehicle car crash... caused by ... Kennedy's negligence, and resulted in the death of... Kopechne...". Senator Kennedy later plead guilty to charges of 'leaving the scene of an accident' and publicly apologized.

So, until CHP releases their incident report I will continue to wonder if another person(s) was with KR or driving KR's car when it went into the lake. While the CHP report may shed light on whether there was someone in KR's passenger seat, could CHP determine how many people were in KR's car? Or if someone other than KR was driving her car?

I considered possible LE action to see if any of my musings actually matter for the proceedings of this case.

1. A Chappaquiddick Incident: If another driver is identified from the CHP report along with additional LE investigation of course, I suspect charges today would be more serious than for Kennedy 53 years ago, per these CA penal codes:

• PC 192 (c)(1): Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence
• PC 192 (c)(2): Misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter
• PC 191.5a and 191.5b: Vehicular Manslaughter and DUI (likely hard to prove post factum!)

2. Passengers with KR or Witnesses to KR's drowning: Per this 2017 ABC-10 Article: "While it's seems both shocking and cruel that a group of people could standby and do nothing as someone helplessly dies, there are no laws in [FL] or [CA] stating that a person is responsible for saving someone's life in a situation similar to the drowning incident [in article]."

• It seems this would absolve any passengers who escaped KR's sinking car and any witnesses on the shore, if any.

3. Anyone who provided KR with alcohol or THC, as many of us here believe, should face legal culpability because KR was under the legal age for both substances. But LE would first need to prove culprit(s) and requisite transaction(s).

While I believe there is plenty of moral misconduct precipitating KR's death, IMO, there appears to be a narrow path for law enforcement against any individual(s) in this case, if applicable. Of the three scenarios I outlined above, #1 would be the most tangible and the most serious. That is why, IMO, the CHP report is a key missing puzzle piece.

Can you link the 18 page coroner report? I would like to read it myself to see if I come to the same conclusions that you do.