Check the other pages in this tragedy:
- A Tragic Trooper Error
- The Trooper Lies
- A Tragic State Error
- My Now Former Employer Speaks
- My Former Wife Speaks
- I Speak
I was headed west in my compact company Izusu pick-up on I-76 at 75 MPH and had just passed the U.S. Hwy. 34 exit to Greeley when I approached a truck (semi; tractor-trailer rig) in the right lane travelling at approximately 70 MPH. I know how fast I was going because there was a State Patrolman parked in the Emergency Vehicle turn-around just east of the Hwy. 34 turn-off and I checked my speedometer precisely. I was in the left lane and proceeded to pass the semi-truck when suddenly a car with its driver and at least one passenger came up behind me at a very high rate of speed. I would estimate this car’s speed to be at least 15-20 MPH faster than my speed, or over 90 MPH. I was quite amazed that the patrolman in the median had not been able to determine that this car was speeding. I tapped my brakes once lightly to warn the driver that he was approaching me too quickly, but he continued to pull up on me. Indeed, the car pulled up so close to my back side that I could no longer see its headlights. I flashed my warning flasher lights because braking at this point would have been too dangerous, but he continued to ride my tailgate.
As soon as I cleared the semi-truck, I signalled and pulled into the right lane to allow this tailgating speeder to pass. At that point he pulled up in the left lane next to my vehicle, looked me straight in the eyes, and as if to try to intimidate me, jerked his steering wheel hard to the right. Unfortunately for both of us, he jerked too hard and his car hit my pick-up on the left side somewhere behind my seat with his right front fender. This sent my pick-up into a broadside skid to the left, causing it to roll onto its right side and then onto its top. The roof collapsed. I slid on my head for quite some distance, able to feel every bump in the road through the roof of my pick-up which then slid off the left side of the road, scooping dirt and rocks into my already uncomfortable close quarters. Then the pick-up flipped onto its left side for a short distance and then back up onto its tires, at least one of which was flattened. It came to rest facing the wrong direction on the left shoulder. Damage to the pick-up is consistent with what I have detailed here.
Amazingly I was able to open the door and get out of the totalled vehicle. I saw the other car still moving down the highway as if they were trying to see if they could drive it away from the scene. I ran across the highway and stood in front of them to try and prevent their leaving the scene. The driver rolled down his window and sarcastically asked, "Oh, so you’re not dead?" Fortunately, he did not run me over!
The scenario portrayed in the accident report has me staying in the left lane, the car behind me pulling in front of the semi-truck, and then me pulling in front of the car, hitting him. This is totally incomprehensible, impossible, and inconsistent with the accident scene and the damage to my vehicle, even as it is listed in the State Patrolman’s report. Had the collision occurred in this manner, my pick-up would have rolled in the opposite direction from which it did! Somehow defying the laws of physics the Patrol report does have me rolling in the proper direction: counter-clockwise. Had their account been true, however, there would be damage to the rear of my vehicle consistent with being hit from behind by the other car. There is NO DAMAGE listed there in the report, and I found little or no damage consistent with a collision there upon further inspection!
I returned to the scene with another individual and the skid marks bear out my description of the accident and match the patrolman’s report after the initial contact, but not how he states the original collision occurred. It would be utterly impossible for it to have happened the way the officer has believed. For that other car to have pulled in between me and the semi-truck would have been utterly impossible since I pulled in directly in front of the semi-truck myself before the car changed lanes!
I only had one chance to tell the OTHER officer (not the one in charge who filed the report) what had happened before they took me off to the hospital. Had I known the other driver was going to lie, I would have insisted on staying around to defend myself.
DON’T any of you believe the lies you see printed! Just because it gets printed as factual news in the paper or law enforcement personnel’s report doesn’t mean it is true. What is true is what really happened. Elmer Goode (the other driver) knows what is true. Elmer Goode should be charged with speeding, following too closely, reckless driving, malicious & pre-meditated (he looked me straight in the eye as he performed his criminal act) vehicular assault with a deadly weapon (his car) with the intent of producing the death of his victim (me). Couldn’t this also be called Attempted First Degree Murder?
I will now have to fight the charge against me in court (which I did, while paying $100/hr to an attorney ... see the following), and be burdened with proving my contentions against Elmer Goode before the D.A. can file charges against him. I have contacted an attorney regarding this incident but have been informed that it will take an astronomical amount of money.
I have to find a way to prove THE TRUTH. Look closely at the facts! THE ACCIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED ANY OTHER WAY CONTRARY TO HOW I HAVE EXPLAINED IT HERE! At any rate, the officer in charge should have issued tickets to both drivers based on the conflicting statements, and then let the TRUTH come out in court.
Thank you for reading the truth;
Thomas A. Blickhahn
§ Who was speeding excessively immediately before the encounter. Goode. Blickhahn, who was travelling at exactly 75 MPH correctly estimated the truck’s speed at 70 MPH (verified via patrol reports and driver statements). He estimated Goode’s speed before the encounter at 90-95 MPH. To verify this, two weeks later he estimated the speed of another vehicle passing him on the interstate to be approximately the same as Goode’s and then accelerated to check that vehicle’s speed. He got up to 90 MPH and the other vehicle was still pulling away slowly. Goode was probably travelling at least 90 MPH. § Who was tailgating while the two vehicles were passing the truck. Goode. Even if Goode did hit Blickhahn from behind, why was there not a "following too close" or other citation as is usual in rear-end collisions. § Who pulled in front of the truck first. Blickhahn. If Goode pulled in first, then he must have cut the truck off short ... very short. § Why there are no straight-line skid marks before the point of impact from either vehicle. Nor are there skid marks from the truck and yet he avoided the accident. No-one applied brakes before the accident. § Why there is no impact damage to the rear of Blickhahn’s pick-up. It was struck from the side. § How the tail-light on Blickhahn’s pick-up got knocked out. There is no transfer paint, and there are scrape marks going up and down, indicating it was taken out during the rolling of the vehicle and not by an impact with the other vehicle. § Where Blickhahn’s vehicle was hit. The only point on the defendant’s vehicle with transfer paint from Goode’s vehicle is on the side, where Goode swerved into it. § How the laws of physics can be applied to determine how the accident must have occurred considering which way the two vehicles ended up travelling. § Who moved their vehicle after the accident, perhaps to conceal or confuse the evidence, or perhaps in an attempt to leave the scene altogether. Goode. Blickhahn determined that although one tire was flat, his pick-up was capable of being driven, and had he wanted to leave the scene he could have. Goode did not stop until he came up on Blickhahn standing in front of him. § Who was injured in the accident and therefore gave a brief statement only to the first officer on the scene, and not the investigating patrolman. Blickhahn. Blickhahn’s statement, therefore, would probably not have carried as much weight with the investigator as those he interviewed, biasing the investigation and possibly the investigator’s opinion of Blickhahn’s character and demeanor, of which he previously had no first-hand experience.