Authorities looking for Ferrari Scuderia driver that killed one and ...

Still the occasional article but nothing new

Eight Months After Ferrari Hit-and-Run, Driver Has Not Been Charged | New Times Broward-Palm Beach

repost of the above
Florida'*****-and-Run Drivers Kill and Get Away With It | Miami New Times

 

Interesting article, but there seems to be a huge hole in the discussion of this case. The article goes to great length to discuss a Florida loophole that allows for lenient sentences, but that sentencing loophole doesn't explain why nobody has even been charged in this case.

 

Exactly. The continued silence from the authorities points to one possibility: The LEOs might have somehow blown the investigation. Either that, or the perp is negotiating with the state attorney and the victim's family for a soft sentence in return for $$$. It is south Florida, after all....

 

A third possibility is he may be connected politically.

 

Or has just left the country.

 

Quite possibly. Given the record of corruption of small town mayors in Miami Dade County, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

I think if that were the case there would be some statement from the state attorney about it. The strange thing about this has been the silence coming from the LEOs and the prosecutors. Typically they can't wait to grab some PR when things are going their way, which indicates to me that there is some kind of problem with the investigation that they don't want to talk about.

 

It all depends on who it was and what country he's from.
There's a 911 related story involving a Saudi family that decamped Sarasota in a rush days before the attack. The files are still sealed despite multiple Freedom of Information Act requests.

 

They cannot PROVE who was behind the wheel, as I read it....

Did they even get tissue samples of the occupants, before they "disappeared from public view"??

 

The last I heard, months ago, was they said they were taking DNA from the surface of the driver's side airbag. It seems to me that the investigators should be able to put enough pressure on the owner of the Ferrari to determine if he was driving or if someone he knew was driving. I guess there's even the possibility that it was stolen, but you'd think the owner would have made a statement if that were the case. The lack of any investigative comment is really concerning, after this much time. I'm not sure why the victim's family hasn't been more persistent.

 

Florida Highway Patrol per one of the articles, is running the ball...

 

OK, let's start wildly speculating since the lack of any statements from the authorities seems odd. Maybe they got DNA from the Ferrari, but they don't have the alleged driver's DNA. So right now they're following him around waiting for him to dispose of a cigarette, soda can, paper coffee cup, a clipped finger nail, etc.

 

They're probably better at this than the locals.....

 

doing a run for donuts...

Fixed

 

Sun Sentinel

 

Everything considered, it appears there is reluctance to go ahead with this case from the LEOs.
Why so is truly puzzling, as in similar cases they are like hungry dogs fighting for a bone.
Could it be that the driver is a big sponsor / donor to the FHP or possibly that the driver was acually one of their own?

 

For once I hope a lawsuit like this will be successful and bankrupt the driver.

 

It would seem to me that once a person becomes a suspect in a hit and run fatal accident, the LEOs should have the necessary authority to match the DNA found in the car with that of the suspect, willing or not.
Just my opinion, but someone here in the legal profession might want to chime in.

 

Collecting DNA isn't the problem. It's his car so it should be everywhere. But how do you prove he was behind the wheel that night? The burden is on the government to prove he was there. The burden is not on him to prove he wasn't. Maybe they couldn't pull any DNA off the airbag and the government is stuck with a circumstantial case.

You know he's going to hire a great attorney capable of injecting reasonable doubt into the minds of jurors. The government has to convince all of them. He has to convince only one. Maybe they are busy negotiating a plea deal to avoid to risk of a not guilty verdict. There could be many reasons other than the cops must have been bought off or are lazy. And finally, cops don't indict cases. Prosecutors do. How do you know the cops don't want this guy indicted and the prosecutor is dragging his feet?

It's frustrating it's taking so long but there is no way of knowing why unless you are part of the investigation. My hunch is the authorities are trying their best but they are having trouble proving he was behind the wheel. It's not always clear cut like on CSI.

Scott

 

Agree that it isn't always open and shut once charged, but that doesn't really explain why nobody has been charged. This type of case doesn't require in-depth research that would take months to complete. The car was destroyed from being rear-ended, so there is no question the speed was far, far in excess of the limit. It's almost incidental whether the driver was drunk to charge someone because it's clear that the speed was far in excess of the limit. The longer they wait, the less information they have. Chances are good a security or highway camera somewhere captured who was behind the wheel that day, but what are the chances that those videos are still around 9 months later? According to the report, the owner has refused to talk to the police, so why wouldn't a prosecutor charge him?

 

I'm glad a lawsuit has been filed. I believe the rules of evidence as well as the threshold of guilt are different from a criminal trial, as in the OJ Simpson case. This might jar something loose that could be used in the criminal investigation.

 

The problem with indicting someone right away is that they then have a right to a speedy trial which they can invoke and the government has to be ready to go (I think it's around 30 days or even less). If the government doesn't have all the evidence squared away, they will lose and forever be barred from charging the person again. You can't just charge someone for not talking. It's not a crime. Yes, one can infer guilt from that - especially if it's that person's car - but that's still not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was behind the wheel. Can you imagine if they went to trial on that alone? And don't forget he will have a top notch defense attorney by his side.

You are right that it is frustrating and it would be nice to know what is keeping him from being indicted. The best thing I can think of is that they haven't been able to prove - with direct evidence - that he was behind the wheel.

Scott

 

You are correct. Preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Given everything we know, is it more likely than not that he was behind the wheel? The civil suit has a very high probability of succeeding.

Scott

 

I will ask my wife, a former prosecutor, about this but I suspect the answer has already been revealed. They don't have enough evidence to put him behind the wheel. If so they would have moved forward a long time ago.

 

All these semantics seem ludicrous.

The guy's car was involved in a high profile fatal hit & run felony. The car is his property and
that in itself should give investigators enough evidence to bring him in for questioning at
the very least.

He's already got a record of driving at 100+MPH on the same stretch of road where the
incident occurred.

Under questioning, a good lawyer should be able to easily catch him in a lie. Why the kit gloves?

BHW