Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
I found this story to be interesting. Lone survivor of a single car crash that killed 6 others is may be pursecuted. What do you think?
Judge to decide on showing crash video to public
01/28/2003
By LINDA BRILL / KING 5 News
AUBURN, Wash. – A woman was shooting video inside a car up to the moment it crashed into a freeway pillar in Auburn, killing six people.
Teresa Hedlund, 30, was the only survivor of the worst single car accident in state history. She and six other Auburn area-residents were packed in a Ford Escort when it crashed two years ago at a high rate of speed.
Hedlund is facing charges of being an accomplice to drunken and reckless driving. Auburn city prosecutors say she contributed to the crash by videotaping the driver, causing him to show off.
"The driver leans over and says basically, 'It's me driving, record me driving, you gotta record this...'," said prosecutor Kelly Montgomery. "It made him not only high on the alcohol but also high on the experience."
KING
The Ford Escort, in the foreground, hit a concrete pillar
Municipal Judge Patrick Burns ruled that jurors will see the video – a party the night of the crash and the last moments inside the car.
Burns says he'll decide Wednesday whether the video will be shown in open court. Prosecution and defense lawyers oppose showing it to the public. Hedlund's attorney says making a videotape is not a crime.
"The city suggest to you that that act - of operating a video camera inside the car in and of itself...makes her criminally responsible..." said Tom Campbell.
Multimedia
Linda Brill reports from the courthouse
On Tuesday morning, the first police officer on the scene testified that he smelled alcohol inside the car.
Hedlund says she doesn't remember the crash. She will not testify.
If convicted she could face more than three years in prison.
'Not responsible'
Hedlund said Monday she was not responsible for the driver’s actions.
“Me, personally, I was very irresponsible that night, myself, but I’m responsible for my own actions, that’s how I see it,” she said.
The car was speeding when it hit an overpass support pillar near the Auburn SuperMall.
KING
Teresa Hedlund, in court Tuesday
Killed in the crash were Hedlund’s fiance, 22-year-old Tim Stewart; Tim's twin brother Tom, who was the car's driver; Jayme Vomenici, 18, of Auburn; Marcus Cooper, 21, of Auburn; Brandon Dupea, 21, of Algona; and April Byrd, 17, of Auburn.
None of them was wearing a seatbelt.
“The outcome would be great if all the kids were back, but that’s not going to happen,” said Vomenici’s father, Randy.
Police say the victims – two of them underage – had been drinking at Hedlund’s Auburn apartment before the crash.
Hedlund is accused of furnishing alcohol and tobacco to a minor on the night of the crash, both gross misdemeanors.
A citizen’s group applauds the charges.
“In this case she clearly was the adult in the arena and should have been making sound choices,” said Linda Elliott, Parent Party Patrol.
“I probably couldn’t have changed anything. Not a day will go by in my life that I won’t want to,” said Hedlund.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
I do not think she should go to prison for filming them. I do think she should get punished for letting a drunk person drive. In my home state, if you are a passenger in a car with an intoxicated person, you get ticketed too. The reasoning is, that if you know someone is about to break the law, you have a responsibility to call the police. And by riding with them, you become a co-conspirator of sorts.
Maybe it is a dumb law that people are to be held accountable for what others do. I still have not made up my mind on that question.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
FYI the judge dropped the charges of accomplice to drunken and reckless driving. She is still be charged with furnishing alcohol and tobacco to minors.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Where is "You be the Judge" answer man? Oh Steve? ;)
Cat
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
FYI the judge dropped the charges of accomplice to drunken and reckless driving. She is still be charged with furnishing alcohol and tobacco to minors.
End Quote
I agree with these charges. But, I bet there will be a civil lawsuit against her. I agree with what John said, but in certain states, there is no "failure to act" law. I'm not sure about Washington, but if there isn't one, there should be. Not because she was filming necessarily, but because she was in the car.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Is it right for a civil lawsuit? She lived, 6 others died, 5 of them were drunk, do you sue their estates? She lived through it and went through months of rehabilitation, is that not suffering?
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
Is it right for a civil lawsuit? She lived, 6 others died, 5 of them were drunk, do you sue their estates? She lived through it and went through months of rehabilitation, is that not suffering?
End Quote
If she was the driver, and my child was killed, probably. In this case, definitely not, but you know that one of them probably will.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
My opinion is that if she was in the car and knew this person behind the wheel was intoxicated, she should be punished for:
a) Being an accomplice to a violation of the law, DUI/DWI.
b) Being an accomplice and violator of the law, No Seatbelts.
c) She should darn-well be punished for Sheer Stupidity, IMO.
d) If she facilitated the alcohol to the rest of the passangers, she's definitely got it comin'.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Here is the full story update on the court ruling. I find the most interesting thing is that the car belonged to the only sober person, who's most liable- the owner of the car, the driver, or the only one who lived?
Judge says Hedlund a victim
2 criminal charges in fatal crash are dismissed
By JEFFREY M. BARKER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
AUBURN -- The jury watched the video -- a gripping camcorder account of a reckless car ride and the last moments of six young lives.
Then Auburn Municipal Court Judge Patrick Burns dismissed two central charges against Teresa Hedlund, the sole survivor of the crash that killed her fiance and five others on July 16, 2001.
"We think it's a clear error of law," Auburn city prosecutor Kelly Montgomery said after the ruling yesterday.
She and Auburn City Attorney Dan Heid sought to convict Hedlund, 30, of being an accomplice to drunken driving and to reckless driving -- charges that could have put her in jail for up to two years. Two other counts were not dismissed -- providing alcohol and tobacco to minors.
The city will ask a King County Superior Court judge to review Burns' dismissal -- a move that will postpone the municipal trial at least until Monday, likely longer.
Tom Campbell, Hedlund's attorney, predicted that Burns' ruling will be upheld and that the city will take the decision to the state Court of Appeals. If Heid does so, a lengthy delay could require the current eight-member jury to disband, necessitating a new trial.
The dismissed charges center on a vague point of law: the definition of a victim.
"I don't think there's any controversy but that Teresa Hedlund is a victim in this crime," Campbell said in court yesterday.
But Montgomery and Heid argued that Hedlund does not fit the legal definition of a victim.
"Ms. Hedlund cannot be a victim if she makes herself be one," Montgomery said. "She put herself in that position; nobody else did."
Campbell cited the state law that defines who is an accomplice to a crime. It excludes those who are victims of the same crime.
Hedlund suffered serious head injuries in the crash. For months, she was in the hospital and in rehabilitation in a nursing home.
"I am a victim," Hedlund said after court had recessed. "I've suffered so much. I've lost the man I loved. I've lost friends who were like family to me."
Burns agreed, but said the law was vague.
"I'm not quite sure what they were thinking when they drafted this statute," he said.
"Being in an automobile and having your car wrapped around a pillar and spending months in rehabilitation clearly constitutes being a victim," Burns said.
Hedlund's hands clasped over her mouth.
"I don't see how a jury could possibly conclude that Ms. Hedlund is not a victim," said Burns, as he dismissed the two charges relating to reckless and drunken driving.
The ruling came in response to a motion from Campbell, presented after the prosecution rested its case yesterday morning.
It was the fourth day of Hedlund's trial over her role in the crash on 15th Street Southwest, near the SuperMall of the Great Northwest.
Hedlund, then 28, had hosted a party at her mother's apartment where alcohol flowed. After she and six others piled in a four-seat sports coupe, Hedlund operated a video camera.
Montgomery contends the camera increased the seriousness of the situation -- that Hedlund "egged" on driver Tom Stewart, who was then "showboating for the camera."
The car was doing more than 80 mph in a 35-mph zone just before it hit a concrete pillar. Killed in the crash was Stewart, 22; his twin brother Tim Stewart, who was also Hedlund's fiance; Marcus Cooper, 21; Brandon Dupea, 21; Jayme Vomenici, 18; and April Byrd, 17.
Vomenici, the only sober person in the vehicle that night, owned the Ford Escort ZX2.
Stewart, who was driving, had a blood alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit -- 0.15 -- a toxicologist testified Wednesday.
Randy Vomenici -- Jayme's father -- was not upset that some charges against Hedlund were dismissed.
"I wasn't here to blame her or anything," he said, holding a poster board covered with snapshots of his daughter. "I was here to find out what happened -- and I think I did that."
He did, however, refer to Hedlund as "the adult who was there -- she could have said something."
He, along with the eight jurors and the others in the court yesterday, watched a video that was shot at the party and in the car. It lasts several minutes and ends just seconds before the car swerved out of control.
Several family members who hadn't seen the video broke down yesterday in the courtroom in the basement of Grace Community Church.
It could be the last time the video will be viewed.
Burns ordered all copies to be turned in and sealed after the trial. He will not allow it to be played again during closing arguments and will not allow jurors to see it during deliberation.
He ruled Wednesday that no duplicates -- video or audio -- may be made.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
She kinda loses sympathy points from me for this:
Quoting:misdemeanor charges based on accusations that she gave her then-4-year-old daughter a cigarette to smoke at a party she hosted before the crash, and provided alcohol to one of the underage crash victims, 17-year-old April Byrd.
The video, played yesterday in court, shows Hedlund's daughter dancing with a cigarette in her mouth as people egg her on, and Byrd holding out a bottle of rum in one hand and a beer in the other and indicating that she's drunk. End Quote
She will still face misdemeanor charge for this.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
She's not much to have sympathy for, she was 28 and engaged to a 22 year old partying with other young people. The video tape that was made before the drive at the party featured her 5 year old daughter with an unlit cigarette dangleing from her mouth. She's a party girl hootchie-mama but has been through more than most (more than I want to go through) of us because of it.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
I'll stand by my earlier post, no matter how much recovery and rehabilitation she's had to go through and suffer. :-/
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
I think that in this case, as in many, many, many cases similar to it, the person who lived, but spent months in the hospital, should not be prosecuted and sent to jail.
Yup! she was bein' stupid. She was hangin' out and partyin' with a bunch a young kids, tryin' to make herself feel younger.
Who's to say who bought the booze?
Maybe it was one of the other 21 year olds.
Who's to say she didn't say anything to anyone about going for a drive after everyone was plastered?
I've been in the position of telling someone they shouldn't drive because they've been drinking. Sometimes it gets to the point where you tell yourself "OK, I can let 'em drive or else I can start punchin' 'em in the face and tryin' to get their keys out of their clenched fist".
I let them drive.
Drunk people aren't rational. When you say "you shouldn't be driving" they come up with a witticism like "Oh yeah?! Says who?!"
I'd like to see some statistics on how many bar owners have actually been convicted of letting a drunk person drive home.
At some point you have to let people be responsible for their own actions.
I would think that this woman has probably suffered enough and has probably learned something.
Do I want to pay part of the 35 to 70 thousand dollars it's going to cost to keep her in jail for a year or two?
No.
I think that a lot of people are angry about what happened and there is only one person alive to blame.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
I'll stand by my earlier post, no matter how much recovery and rehabilitation she's had to go through and suffer. :-/
End Quote
I'm truly curious. Given this statement, which shows you acknowledge this person's remorse and that they have suffered severe consequences aside from the law, what purpose do you believe would be served by incarcerating or further penalizing person?
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
I'm truly curious. Given this statement, which shows you acknowledge this person's remorse and that they have suffered severe consequences aside from the law, what purpose do you believe would be served by incarcerating or further penalizing person?End Quote
It would serve as an example to others, of course.
Maybe, just maybe it will make other potentially irresponsible people out there realize that this kind of conduct and law breaking will not be tolerated, no matter how hurt the survivor becomes or how sorry they are after the fact (provided they knowingly contributed as she did, sober as she was). Her recovery and physical suffering does not, in any way, take away from the fact that she contributed greatly to the death of other people, in my opinion. These kinds of situations are all subjective, of course. In this particular case, however, I feel she should still be penalized somehow.
The law cannot and should not waiver.
If we begin to think in terms of "she's sorry", "she's suffered enough", "she's learned her lesson"....
Where do we stop? We'd have to have the same consideration for all of these inconsiderate and tragically irresponsible people now and in the future.
Edited for typo.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
It would serve as an example to others, of course.
Maybe, just maybe it will make other potentially irresponsible people out there realize that this kind of conduct and law breaking will not be tolerated, no matter how hurt the survivor becomes or how sorry they are after the fact (provided they knowingly contributed as she did, sober as she was). Her recovery and physical suffering does not, in any way, take away from the fact that she contributed greatly to the death of other people, in my opinion. These kinds of situations are all subjective, of course. In this particular case, however, I feel she should still be penalized somehow.
The law cannot and should not waiver.
If we begin to think in terms of "she's sorry", "she's suffered enough", "she's learned her lesson"....
Where do we stop? We'd have to have the same consideration for all of these inconsiderate and tragically irresponsible people now and in the future.
Edited for typo.
End Quote
Thank you explaining.
IME, the "making an example" theme doesn't seem to work as the prisons are overcrowded with "examples" and people are still going to prison.
But I will concede, that I fully support prosecution to the fullest extent possible due to the fact that she was sober. It would be the same as being sober, giving a drunk person a gun, then daring them to shoot up a bar or something.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
She wasn't the sober one, it was one of the younger guys that was sober, he of course was killed in the crash.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:Campbell cited the state law that defines who is an accomplice to a crime. It excludes those who are victims of the same crime.
End Quote
This law makes absolutely no sense at all. If it's on the books, though, you can understand why the judge dropped the charges.
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
This law makes absolutely no sense at all. If it's on the books, though, you can understand why the judge dropped the charges.
End Quote
So if a bank robber shoots an accomplice, and the accomplice lives, then any charges against him/her in regards to the robbery can be dropped? Is that what this law means?
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
So if a bank robber shoots an accomplice, and the accomplice lives, then any charges against him/her in regards to the robbery can be dropped? Is that what this law means?
End Quote
I don't know, Gore. I was thinking more of an arsonist and his accomplice. They start a fire, the accomplice is injured in the fire; does that mean he can't be tried as an accomplice to arson? If the law is upheld inthe appeals court, I can't believe it'll be held constitutional by the state Supreme Court.
What have your legislators been smoking, Race?
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
It is a very liberal state Steve. ;)
I just read an editorial that mentions that point, and I can definatley see the lack of clarity to that law. In the arson and robbery examples I think that the clear participation in a felony crime would make it easily prosecutable, the situation here was not as clear cut.
Quoting:
I don't know, Gore. I was thinking more of an arsonist and his accomplice. They start a fire, the accomplice is injured in the fire; does that mean he can't be tried as an accomplice to arson? If the law is upheld inthe appeals court, I can't believe it'll be held constitutional by the state Supreme Court.
What have your legislators been smoking, Race?
End Quote
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
My question - why was the only sober person a passanger and NOT the one driving?
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Very Good Question! Would this person not be the most liable since they work participating w/o impaired judgement?
I imigine it had something to do with peer pressures, it's easy to bully a young person when you are the "cool" guy.
Quoting:
My question - why was the only sober person a passanger and NOT the one driving?
End Quote
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Quoting:
Very Good Question! Would this person not be the most liable since they work participating w/o impaired judgement?
*snip*
End Quote
Probably would be. But isn't everyone except the accused dead?
Since the accused wasn't sober, I'll clarify my postion. Prosecution and/or incarceration have little, if anything, to do with the accused. In this case the drunk person wasn't driving. She was weilding a loaded video camera. What if it had been a Gun, and it accidently went off? What if she were the one driving and killed another driver in a head on collision? Happens all the time. Those people go to jail, regardless of how bad they feel. Furthermore, regardless of how bad they feel, they can't bring the dead back to life and undo the consequences of their actions.
Look at it another way. The law punishes violations and consequences, not people. It's "just" -- in the legal sense of the word -- that whoever creates the consequences should pay what the law demands.
The accused probably does feel terrible, remorseful, and if given the chance would undo what she's done and never do something like that again. I feel badly for her too. I'd be tearful if I were on her jury voting for her as guilty.
God desires mercy over Justice. But we are mere mortals. In order for us to thrive as a society, we have to lean towards Justice over Mercy. And even the Bible says, "The Lord is a God of Justice" Isaiah 30:18
My two cents :)
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Here is the latest, we'll have to wait to see how much time she gets.
Auburn woman guilty in crash-videotape case
By JEFFREY M. BARKER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
AUBURN -- A woman accused of contributing to a crash that killed six young people, including her fiance, was found guilty Friday of three of the four charges against her.
Teresa Hedlund, 30, was found guilty of being an accomplice to drunken driving and of providing alcohol and tobacco to a minor. But she was acquitted of being an accomplice to reckless driving -- the charge linked to her use of a video camera to film the moments that led up to the horrific crash on July 16, 2001.
Prosecutors had contended that the use of the camera amounted to egging on Tom Stewart, 22, who was driving the Ford Escort ZX2 when it slammed into a concrete pillar near the SuperMall in Auburn that night.
Killed along with Stewart were his twin brother, Tim; Jayme Vomenici, 18; Marcus Cooper, 21; Brandon Dupea, 21; and April Byrd, 17. Hedlund, who was in the front passenger seat and was the only survivor of the single-car crash, was critically injured.
Tom Stewart had a blood alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit when the crash occurred.
Hedlund will be sentenced later. She faces up to a one-year sentence on each charge.
Auburn Municipal Judge Patrick Burns had ruled last week that Hedlund was a victim and therefore couldn't be considered an accomplice to them.
But a King County Superior Court judge disagreed Wednesday and reinstated the charges, saying Hedlund was a victim -- but of vehicular assault, not of drunken and reckless driving.
The case was handed to the six-person jury at midday Thursday.
In an impassioned closing argument, city prosecutor Kelly Montgomery asked the jurors to imagine that the single-car crash had never happened -- that somehow the drunken joy ride hadn't led to the deaths of six young people.
"Teresa Hedlund would still be sitting here today," Montgomery said, alleging that Hedlund encouraged crimes long before the small Ford Escort ZX2 packed tight with seven people struck a pillar.
The car belonged to the only sober person inside it that night, Jayme Vomenici. Because she was small, Montgomery said, she had to sit in the back -- on Cooper's lap. Tim Stewart also sat in the back seat with Dupea and April Byrd, who passed out.
Hedlund rode in the front passenger seat, on her knees, facing backward, videotaping.
"Sometimes presence, in and of itself, is something enough to convict a person of a crime," Montgomery said.
But Hedlund went beyond simply being present, Montgomery argued. She "egged on" Tom Stewart by filming with a video camera.
"The camera did have an influence on those people," Montgomery said. "It makes the mundane exciting . . . the ordinary glamorous . . . it makes risks fun . . . and it makes the unacceptable acceptable."
Hedlund's attorney, Tom Campbell, countered.
"What they're trying to do is take the mundane and make it criminal," he said.
He went through the charges, calling prosecutor's evidence "deficient" and saying that none of it speaks directly to Hedlund's actions.
There's no direct evidence that Hedlund, who was severely injured in the crash, supplied alcohol or that she was even aware Byrd was a minor, Campbell said. The Stewarts organized the party and Cooper brought the beer -- not Hedlund, he said. And it was Vomenici who must have handed car keys to a drunken Stewart.
"I'm asking you not to prolong this woman's agony . . . I don't just ask you, I beg you. And she does, too," he said Thursday. "Set her free and let her live with her demons."
Subject: Re: Interesting Story-Liable or Not?
Update for those interested.
Woman will spend a day in jail for role in fatal crash
Defense attorney appeals, claims Hedlund is a victim
By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
AUBURN -- A municipal court judge yesterday sentenced Teresa Hedlund, the sole survivor of a drunken-driving crash that killed five of her friends and her fiance, to one day in jail and fined her $350 -- the minimum sentence she could have received.
Hedlund, 30, was found guilty in February of encouraging drunken driving and giving alcohol and tobacco to minors. The six-member jury found her not guilty of being an accomplice to reckless driving in the July 16, 2001, crash.
Hedlund's defense attorney, Tom Campbell, immediately appealed. Campbell claimed that Hedlund was the biggest victim in the case, and that no punishment at all was deserved.
Campbell said the public "will be satisfied and should be satisfied" with the sentence. "I don't think they think she should have been prosecuted to begin with."
Campbell had asked for a new trial before the sentence was handed down, but was turned down by Auburn Municipal Court Judge Patrick Burns.
Prosecutors argued that Hedlund egged on the car's driver, Tom Stewart, by using a video camera to film the moments that led up to the crash near the SuperMall of the Great Northwest in Auburn.
The accident killed Stewart and his twin brother, Tim, both 22; Marcus Cooper, 21; Brandon Dupea, 21; April Byrd, 17; and Jayme Vomenici, 18.
The seven had partied at Hedlund's mother's apartment, where Hedlund and her fiance, Tim Stewart, lived. They then crammed into Vomenici's four-seat Ford Escort ZX2 and rammed into a concrete pillar.
The videotape of the evening stopped just seconds before the crash.
It was Washington state's deadliest single-car crash in more than 50 years.
Although Burns sentenced Hedlund to just a day in jail -- which he could convert today into 15 hours of electronic home monitoring -- he also made several other demands of Hedlund, as prosecutors requested. They include writing an apology letter to the parents of one of the victims; enrolling in parenting classes; obtaining an alcohol evaluation and receiving follow-up treatment; and speaking to two Auburn High School assemblies about the perils of driving while drunk.
Hedlund kept her head lowered through most of the proceedings yesterday while maintaining a determined expression. Neither Hedlund nor her mother, Karen Bice, would comment afterward.
Through her attorney, Hedlund remained unapologetic about her role in the accident.
"No one has suffered more than Teresa Hedlund," said Campbell during his sentencing argument. "The responsibility lay on many shoulders. ... Nobody had the ability to make Tom Stewart do anything different" than he was doing while driving.
In her argument, Auburn city prosecutor Kelly Meagher had less sympathy for Hedlund. "It's astonishing to see the lack of responsibility and the lack of remorse," she said. Hedlund's conduct, she said, was "wholly egregious and reprehensible."
Hedlund gave her 4-year-old daughter a cigarette to smoke during the party at Bice's condominium, prosecutors said at trial, and provided alcohol to Byrd, who was underage.
The video showed Vomenici, the only sober passenger that night, shouting at Stewart to slow down or stop.
As yesterday's hearing was set to start, Vomenici's father, Randy, declined to comment -- other than to note, "I think I've said all there is to say."