This document is part of a series about Randall "Duke" Cunningham's attempted murder / suicide on November 25th, 2005

Home page for "Cunningham's Last Battle" web site / Contact the author / victim / witness Russell 'Ace' Hoffman

[Mrs. Hoffman]

Carlsbad, CA

June 5, 2006

 
Dear Supervisor Horn,

I am a resident of District 5 of San Diego County, having resided in Carlsbad California for more than 14 years. I am writing to you for assistance concerning the San Marcos Sheriffs department, which falls under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Sheriffs office.
On November 25, 2005 my husband and I were the victims of a hit-and-run accident in San Marcos, California. Since that time, despite repeated requests, the San Diego County Sheriff's department has failed to investigate this incident, or even to file a police report other than the incident number assigned at the scene of the accident.
I realize that hit-and-run accidents happen all the time, and that in many cases there is no point to an investigation, but there are three things that set this incident apart:
Hit-and-run only describes the behavior of the other driver at the end of the incident. A more accurate description is attempted murder/suicide (perhaps the technical term is vehicular homicide or something else, but the intent was never in doubt). The driver aimed his car directly at ours, going the wrong way on a 5-lane surface road (two lanes in each direction, plus a turn lane in the center). He continued to aim for us and accelerate, matching every evasive maneuver my husband (who was driving) made for approximately seven seconds. Let me assure you that seven seconds is an eternity when youre staring death in the face.
We retrieved a part of the other drivers car at the scene of the accident that uniquely identifies the vehicle. Any reasonably competent investigator, armed with subpoena power could identify the specific vehicle in a matter of hours. However, the San Marcos Sheriff, John Kelleher (#2004) who (eventually) arrived at the accident scene refused to accept the part, to talk with the witnesses (there were several), or to attempt in any way to locate the criminal.
During follow-up visits to the San Marcos Sheriffs department, we were repeatedly told that the paperwork would be filled out and an investigation would be initiated. However, more than six months after the accident, there is no record other than the original incident (#4798702) assigned at the accident scene by Sheriff Kelleher.
I have expanded on each of these points in the attached document, but Id like to clarify why I am contacting you concerning this matter. I feel that the countys law enforcement system, as it is represented by the San Marcos Sheriffs department, has failed to act professionally or even competently in dealing with this incident, and I would like you to initiate an investigation into how the Sheriffs department has handled this case.
I firmly believe that any investigation concerning this incident must be initiated from outside the San Diego Sheriffs department because multiple people within that department have participated in the lack of response so far. We have been told that the Sheriffs department routinely discards faxes without recording their receipt in any way and that there is no mechanism to create a record that a citizen has delivered information to the department. We have invested considerable time and effort in attempting to get the San Marcos Sheriffs department to investigate this accident and we have been stonewalled by multiple people who said they would investigate, but apparently did nothing of the sort.
I understand that throughout your career in San Diego county government you have been involved in law enforcement issues. My goal is to improve law enforcement procedures, and to reduce the probability that other San Diego county citizens will share our dismal experience with the Sheriffs department. It would also improve my peace of mind, and that of many other people, to know that the vehicle that hit us on November 25, 2005 had been positively identified and the driver apprehended.
I would be glad to provide any further information you may need in order to begin an investigation into how the San Marcos Sheriffs department has handled this incident. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible
 
Best regards,
 
 
[Mrs. Hoffman]
 
enclosures:
Expanded discussion of the three points that make this hit-and-run accident worth investigating
Copy of the sticker which identifies the car part retrieved at the scene of the accident
 
********************* end first document ********************

********************** start second document **************

Expanded discussion of the three points that make this hit-and-run accident worth investigating
Point #1: Hit-and-run only describes the behavior of the other driver at the end of the incident. A more accurate description is attempted murder/suicide (perhaps the technical term is vehicular homicide or something else, but the intent was never in doubt). The driver aimed his car directly at ours, going the wrong way on a 5-lane surface road (two lanes in each direction, plus a turn lane in the center). He continued to aim for us and accelerate, matching every evasive maneuver my husband (who was driving) made for approximately seven seconds. Let me assure you that seven seconds is an eternity when youre staring death in the face.

Although the responding officer dismissed the idea that the other driver was intentionally trying to kill us, there is considerable evidence to back up this assertion. It was a clear night on a well-lighted street. There were five lanes available and very little traffic by the end of the incident there was no traffic as all the other drivers had apparently backed off in order to give us an opportunity to maneuver and avoid the other drivers deadly intent. My husband gave the other driver numerous opportunities to avoid hitting us. Even at the final moment, it seems that the driver actually turned towards our vehicle. Both my husband and I thought that the accident had been averted, when CRASH the other car hit our rear quarter-panel on the passenger side. Despite the fact that by this time our car had slowed almost to a crawl, the closing speed was 60-80 miles per hour. Fortunately, our vehicle is relatively heavy and there was nobody in the back seat.
Point #2: We retrieved a part of the other drivers car at the scene of the accident that uniquely identifies the vehicle. Any reasonably competent investigator, armed with subpoena power could identify the specific vehicle in a matter of hours. However, the San Marcos Sheriff, John Kelleher (#2004) who (eventually) arrived at the accident scene refused to accept the part, to talk with the witnesses (there were several), or to attempt in any way to locate the criminal.
The part we retrieved (at the instigation of one of the witnesses) is a wheel-well liner and it is labeled with a sticker (see attached) that includes a considerable amount of information.
My husband had identified the car in the 911 call as a newer version of a Suzuki Samurai and that evening (Friday, November 25, 2005) he determined via an Internet search that the current version of the Samurai is a Chevrolet Tracker. On Saturday morning (November 26, 2005) he called a Chevrolet dealer and spoke with somebody in the parts/service department who was able to verify that the part belonged to a Chevy Tracker and that it contained a customer number for the dealer or body shop, although the number was not for that particular dealer. The sticker also contains a date, 10/12/05, less than two months prior to the accident which took place on 11/25/05. In addition it includes a variety of other identifying information (see accompanying photo).
All that would be required to identify the specific car this part was installed on would be to contact the parts manufacturer to identify the dealer or body shop. The company that performed the repair should not have any difficulty identifying the particular car that was repaired with this part within a maximum timeframe of about six weeks.
In addition to the part from the other drivers car, there were multiple witnesses who would have been able to corroborate our description of the accident. Although Sheriff Kelleher did not arrive until approximately 45 minutes after we placed the 911 call, at least one of the witnesses was still available at that time, in a parking lot a few hundred yards away. Two other witnesses worked at a restaurant that overlooked the scene of the accident. So although the restaurant was closed by the time Sheriff Kelleher arrived, those witnesses also could have been located easily the following morning. However, Sheriff Kelleher did not take any information about any of the witnesses, and basically discouraged us from any further investigation by saying that, because the other driver was not identified, any paperwork would reflect badly upon my husband as the only identified driver in the incident and would remain on his record for seven years.
Of course, all this would have been easier to do, and peoples recollections would undoubtedly have been much clearer if the investigation had been pursued immediately.
Point #3: During follow-up visits to the San Marcos Sheriffs department, we were repeatedly told that the paperwork would be filled out and an investigation would be initiated. However, more than six months after the accident, there is no record other than the original incident (#4798702) assigned at the accident scene by Sheriff Kelleher.
 
After determining that the part retrieved at the scene of the accident could indeed be used to positively and unequivocally identify the car, we made multiple attempts to get the San Marcos Sheriffs department to pursue the investigation. Between November 25, 2005 and January 1, 2006, we telephoned the Sheriffs department twice, and sent a detailed fax providing additional information and requesting a further investigation. By January 1, 2006 it was apparent that no investigation would be forthcoming based on those initial contacts and we decided to try a more direct approach.
 
We went to the San Marcos Sheriffs department a total of four times over the next few weeks. (On the first three visits both my husband and I went; I made the final visit on my own.) We began by requesting a copy of the report of the accident which is when we discovered that only an incident number, but no report, existed. We were told that an incident is recorded permanently in the computer, but that we could not get a copy unless a report was filed. During one of these visits we were also told there was no record of the fax we had sent and that faxes were basically thrown out unless somebody was expecting them.
 
We were also told by two different officers (Bennett and Hensley) that paperwork concerning this case would be initiated. Sergeant Hensley also told us that the information from the car part seemed sufficient to launch an investigation. We came away with the impression that they would, at a minimum, file a full report, identify the car based on the sticker, and talk to the owner of the vehicle. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of those steps have taken place. 
 
On the fourth visit to the San Marcos Sheriffs department, I dropped off some documentation for Sergeant Hensley, and I asked whether there was a mechanism to record that I had delivered this packet of information. I was told there was no such procedure. I find it peculiar, to say the least, that a department responsible for tracking evidence (among other duties) would not have a procedure to record when, and by whom, a document was received.
 
Since our last visit to the San Marcos Sheriffs department, our insurance company has also contacted them to request documentation of this case. The insurance representative was told that no report has been filed.
 
For additional information please contact:
[Mrs. Hoffman]