Thank you for your letter of January 3rd, 2005 regarding my traffic accident, in which I allege Randall Cunningham was the other driver and that he was behaving in a reckless, wanton, suicidal and homicidal manner. As far as I know, we are no closer to "solving" this case than we ever were before.
Please accept this letter as a formal written complaint about the way the investigation has gone. I believe the San Marcos Sheriff's Department has bungled this case and abused this victim from the moment the incident was handed over to them by the State Police's 911 operator.
Because of the seriousness of the crime (which the other driver can attest to, if he so desires), much though I would like to, I cannot ignore this incident. It would be immoral to say nothing, to drop it without even trying to get an investigation, to assume that I should be cop, judge and jury on this, to assume that the other driver was Cunningham and is therefore not a threat to society anymore -- even though the responding officer clearly wants me to believe he thinks I'm crazy for even thinking I could see the other driver, let alone identify him, since the accident happened so fast.
Kelleher claims it could not possibly have been Cunningham and that's the end of it as far as he's concerned. Well, then what if the "real" perpetrator does it again? What culpability will Kelleher have for letting him go this time, despite my assertions? What culpability, at least from a moral point of view, if not from a legal one, would I have?
I think the San Marcos Sheriff's Department's shocking lack of interest and unwillingness to investigate is due to the conflicting reasons for proceeding that everyone seems to have, except the responding officer, Kelleher, who seems to have no reason to want to proceed whatsoever. He abuses his badge and color of authority. He intimidates. And he arrives nearly 45 minutes late to the scene and comes with a bad attitude, to boot -- yelling at me for leaving the car in the position of the accident (even though I had set up triangles and had the flashers on, and I was NOT in a "driving" lane. (I was in the middle, two-way turning lane. The roads were nearly empty at the time.)
Another thing Kelleher specifically is totally illogical about is his assertion that the other driver must have blown by me so fast I couldn't possibly have seen that it was Cunningham at the wheel. He said it had a "one in a million" chance -- I believe those were his exact words. But if that's true, why doesn't he at least consider it a serious, high-speed accident which should be investigated (as I pointed out to the third officer I've had to talk to so far just to try to get an investigation going, whose name I didn't get for certain but I think it was Henkley and my wife recalls hearing him say he has 25 years on the force (as compared to Kelleher's 17 years)). I don't think eight more years would make Kelleher half the professional this other guy was.
And how come Kelleher can assert to me (on the phone) that if the other driver had really intended to have a fatal head-on collision, "there would have been no way you could have avoided him" when the physics of THIS accident clearly show otherwise, and I even offered to take him out on a skidpad and teach him the defensive driving techniques which saved our lives (Governor Schwarzenegger should probably attend, too (yes, I have a motorcycle endorsement))?
The second San Marcos police officer I spoke to was named Bennett. She made me say Cunningham's name in the crowded lobby (which I doubt is Standard Operating Procedure), and then pronounced for all present to hear that it wouldn't make any difference WHO it was. A few days later, the other officer (Henkley (sp)) was, I would say, more honest about that and said he would NOT go talk to the person I claim hit me (he wouldn't say the name in the lobby so neither did I) without being able to tie the car back to him in some way. I believe my response was: "So that means you're going to find out who owns that Chevy Tracker" and pointed to the sticker with the information on it.
Before going to the San Marcos Sheriff's Department for the second time (of three trips so far), I stopped in at my local police department, and gave someone there a brief but reasonably complete description of the accident (leaving Cunningham's name out, and saying only that I could name the driver because I saw him later on television). The person I spoke to (not a uniformed officer but a long-time employee of several local police departments) not only told me she expected they would investigate such an accident, she also suggested that if I am not satisfied with the responding officer's actions, I should ask to talk to his supervisor. When Kelleher was so insulting on the phone, that's exactly what I did, and how I ended up talking to Bennett, who actually doesn't seem to be his superior officer at all in terms of rank, although she is certainly his superior in terms of being somewhat more professional. However, when she assured me she was interested in seeing justice done and would be sure to talk to Kelleher to get the details (I stress that that was the reason), it should be noted that within moments of that claim of interest she had REFUSED to even go look at the actual damage to the car when I offered to show it to her. Fortunately Henkley (sp) had the professionalism or casual interest to come out and look. By the way, I seriously doubt that Chevy Tracker Wheel Well Liners come off in low speed accidents very often, if ever.
I think the San Marcos Sheriff's Department has the complete wrong attitude and wrong plan of action. I suspect their goal here is to catch the friend who loaned the car to Cunningham for covering up a bad accident. And that's "at best." They may still be thinking I'm making this whole thing up or wouldn't care who it was that hit me if I didn't think it was Cunningham. And they can't understand why I wouldn't want to press charges against Cunningham, either, as far as I can tell. The officer asked to see my letter to Cunningham (which I already sent you), but I think he just wants to see it to know if I threatened Cunningham with a lawsuit or something. He already stated he has no intention of talking to Cunningham unless the car has a clear link that he can see. The purpose of the PRIVATE letter to Cunningham was to try to PREVENT Cunningham from being too depressed about the accident and trying to commit suicide again. It seems to be doing its job. But if his friend who loaned him the car is going to get in big trouble for it, will THAT send Cunningham over the edge again? If so, we'll all lose his testimony. The San Marcos Sheriff's Department should tread lightly, but I don't think they grasp that Cunningham's suicidal tendencies are the overriding issue in this investigation at this point. That, and properly using the authority granted them by our Constitution to "solve" this no-brainer case, and not abuse that authority, as they seem to be doing so far.
The overriding concern (after preventing any further attempts at suicide) should be to get an accurate description of the accident from Cunningham himself, because that description would be coming from a former jet fighter pilot "Ace" who didn't flinch in his suicide attempt, not once, but DID make a very typical and in the event "fatal" blunder which I was able to capitalize on to save all our lives. He has been "debriefed" after ever flight and can tell his version accurately. His mistake (which allowed me to save his life) was a mistake which MOST suicidal head-on drivers are PROBABLY likely to make. I believe studying this "accident" carefully can save lives.
So the San Marcos Sheriff's Department MIGHT be trying to figure a way to put pressure on the owner of the car, and then arrest him for something, and with luck he'll look a little like Cunningham and might even be willing to take the rap or threaten to fight it or something and get me to back down, and then maybe they figure I'll stop the hunt for the REAL driver and be satisfied that they have actually helped serve justice instead of hindering it, and go away.
Or maybe they just want to figure any way out that will avoid what is inevitably heading their way like a train wreck -- a charge of obstruction of justice by the undersigned. I don't pretend to know the motives of the San Marcos Sheriff's Department, but finding the truth seems relatively low on their list. And I don't think they could find a grand piano if it fell off a truck in their own "Restaurant Row." Their automated telephone answering system is serpentine; Bennett claims they throw out faxes by the bucketful each morning (hence my supposedly lost fax from Monday, November 28th, 2005, and note that she didn't say "shreds" she said something to the effect of "discards"); and Kelleher's business card that he gave me at the scene and that he wrote the "incident number" on (whatever that means, since it's obviously not a "case number" and I couldn't get a written record of it, although the person at San Marcos Sheriff's Department did state that this record did indicate that Kelleher hadn't taken possession of the part I claimed came from the other vehicle) has his email address wrong and things bounce when you send them there. He later told me it's ".org" instead of ".com" but he didn't respond to an email to that address, either, and shouldn't it be ".ca.gov" or something, anyway? This whole event is both Keystone-ish and Kafkaesque.
I don't KNOW how to get Cunningham to "confess" but I THINK it's easy: Assure him nothing will come if it if he does, but lives might be saved and that will be considered good behavior for all other matters -- it could (and should) lead to a reduction of his total sentence -- make it clear that he has nothing to lose by cooperating (but his pride, which is a small price to pay for saving other people's lives, which this would be an invaluable chance to do). I have read time and again in the paper that he is required to answer the Fed's questions under oath and with a lie detector hooked up. I don't have 100% faith in lie detectors but I do have 100% faith that if Cunningham (and the owner of the Chevy Tracker he borrowed (if that's how he got it)) are offered immunity in exchange for honest testimony by Cunningham, it greatly increases the chances of getting that testimony, which I am convinced will save lives if later translated into a computer driving test / training scenario, for example. Police, for that matter, are probably most likely to face this sort of situation some time or other in their careers. Kelleher swears he'd be a dead man if faced with what I *SAY* happened. But there's no need for that -- these things ARE survivable! But it sure ain't easy.
If the other driver was just drunk or merely didn't have insurance as Kelleher asserts (I think prescription so-called "antidepressants" is a much more likely possibility), then why in the world did it take so long for Kelleher to respond to a call about a wild driver -- presumed by Kelleher himself to be wickedly drunk in the fullest sense of the term -- when these same "Keystone Kops" were, at the time (if I'm not mistaken), running a DUI checkpoint?
That's one thing he's illogical about, and so is the rest of the San Marcos Sheriff's Department, as far as I can tell, who also seem to want to dismiss an investigation simply because the other driver was probably drunk and NOT suicidal / homicidal. Well? Isn't there a dichotomy there somewhere? First of all, it's ASSUMED that drunks put other people's lives in danger, but aren't drunks with absolutely no sense of self-preservation even more dangerous and well worth finding, even if it's a little harder than simply having them drive up to you at a "sobriety checkpoint" (the Constitutionality of such things (as checkpoints) I question, but never having been stopped at one, it's not my case)?
I consider Kelleher not only a "hostile witness" but a person who, for whatever reason, has purposefully broken the chain of evidence, purposefully failed to interview witnesses, purposefully ignored blatantly obvious facts which showed from the start that this was a serious incident, and on and on and on -- he has, at the very least, been rude. He has done the wrong thing at practically every step. In fact, for the most part, the entire San Marcos Sheriff's Department seems to be bungling this case on purpose.
I would have hoped that obtaining honest testimony about this horrific incident from both drivers would be the overriding concern of law enforcement in this case, so that the incident can be used to train others how to avoid even as highly skilled a "pilot" as Cunningham, even when he is absolutely intent on having a head-on collision. But so far, it appears more likely that Cunningham is a friend of Kelleher's, or at least an acquaintance, and Kelleher is actually purposefully covering for the former Congressman. After all, could it really take this long to track down that car and find its connection to Cunningham? I doubt it. Could Kelleher really have never seen my original fax from Monday, November 28th, 2005? Could he really be so sure I couldn't possibly have seen the other driver because the accident happened so fast, and then at the same time be sure this is a minor incident which need not be investigated? Yeah. I wasn't born yesterday. And why did the statements to me by Bennett and Henkley (sp) conflict? Why did Bennet say she was interested and would get information from Kelleher, but not want to actually look at the real evidence right outside when I offered? And yet you tell me these folks are capable, responsible officers of the law?
I don't need an apology from Cunningham -- I saw that the sorrow in his face the following Monday and I am more than satisfied with what I saw. But the fact is, any good psychologist should be able to tell you that his behavior that day should have made him an instant suspect in the crime against me, even if I hadn't seen the driver's face at all.