justice for tommy harmeyer l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Justice for Tommy Harmeyer PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Justice for Tommy Harmeyer

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 23
nero

Justice for Tommy Harmeyer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation
Justice for Tommy Harmeyer
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Justice for Tommy Harmeyer

  2. Tommy, born June 10, 1984, was loved by many for his outstanding contributions to society and for his selfless actions. He was the guy that would give you the shirt off his back without delay or hesitation. Born and raised in a little suburb of Dallas called Rockwall, Tommy made a circle of friends consisting of people from all walks of life. He was the type to make friends anywhere and with everyone. Tommy was the protective sort, the guy who always stood up for the underdog, the down and out and those with not a voice to be heard. His contributions and volunteer work amounted to more in his few years after High School than what most people participate in throughout a lifetime. Volunteering for the annual Special Olympics was very important to Tommy as he was a tender hearted person with a passion to help the mentally and physically disabled. Other volunteer work that was noble for such a young man were bike rides up to 150 miles long, benefiting the Cancer Society. Tommy accomplished these bike rides with a $50 dollar bike he bought at a garage sale since it was the only money he had at the time. After spending two years at a local community college he moved to San Marcos to attend Texas State. Tommy’s goal was to get a degree in psychology so he would have an education enabling him to benefit and improve the lives of others, something he was so natural at doing. Unfortunately Tommy Harmeyer's life was cut short due to the negligence of one driver on February 4, 2007.

  3. Presentation Content Overview • Cover Page (slide 1) • Tommy’s brief back ground (slide2) • Presentation Content Overview (slide 3) • The Facts (slide 4) • Original accident report (slide 5-6) • Blood test reports (slide 7-8) • Amended Accident Report (slide 9) • Discrepancies in Speed calculations (slides 10-15) • Steven Martinez’s contradictory statements (slides 16-19) • Cover up (slide 22) • Let’s find Justice for Tommy Harmeyer (slide 23)

  4. THE FACTS • Tommy Harmeyer is dead. • Tommy Harmeyer is charged with 2 citations, blaming his death on himself. • The offender is issued only a single citation (failure to yield right of way). • The deceased Tommy Harmeyer has blood tests to determine if any drugs or alcohol was present. • The living offender is tested for nothing. • Original investigation report is changed, amended and altered over 3 months later. • Altered report blames Tommy Harmeyer for his own death and defendant assumes no responsibility. • First on the scene witness later hires an attorney, retracts statements and is unavailable for comment. • Initial accident report states defendant was completely responsible. • Final narrative states Tommy Harmeyer drove 1 mile plus over the speed limit (31 mph in a 30 mph zone), thus putting sole responsibility for his death on himself. • Case never went to District Attorney or Grand Jury. • This is a POLICE COVER UP!

  5. After Tommy Harmeyer's tragic death many atrocities where committed by the local public servants that were sworn to protect and serve its citizens. The report below is the part of the original investigative report that explains how the accident occurred (highlighted in yellow). Mr. Martinez ( Unit 1 ) failed to yield a right of way by making an illegal turn across oncoming lanes of traffic into a private drive. As indicated below (in red) Mr. Martinez was cited for a # 37 (failed to yield right of way ), while Mr. Harmeyer ( Highlighted blue, Unit 2 ) was not cited for any moving violations.

  6. This is the first narrative version of how Mr. Martinez’s vehicle made an illegal left hand turn on February 4, 2007 that ended the life of Tommy Harmeyer. As you see in the picture of the car Steve Martinez was driving, the motorcycle which Tommy Harmeyer was driving had a direct impact with the car due to a sudden misjudgment of the surroundings along with a disregard to traffic laws of the State of Texas. Steven Arthur Martinez received a citation for this as indicated below in yellow.

  7. The Official Texas Peace Officers Crash Report on the left indicates the type of tests that where performed at the scene to see if alcohol or drugs were a factor in the accident. As you can see in the highlighted area under “TYPE OF ALCHOL SPECIMEN TAKEN” and “TYPE OF DRUG SPECIMEN TAKEN”, Steve Arthur Martinez received not one test to see if an impaired judgment was a factor in his decision to make an illegal turn which killed Tommy Harmeyer. It is usually standard practice in the State of Texas to see if an impaired judgment was a factor of an accident, let alone a fatality!!

  8. This segment shows that Thomas Harmeyer was tested for drugs and alcohol in his system to see if that played a role in his fatality. Tommy was driving like many of us do everyday and became a victim of another's careless misjudgments. He died as a result, yet Tommy got tested while Mr. Martinez never received a single test. Testing the victim and not the offender? Here you can see the entire page of the Texas Peace Officers Report, and the segmented highlighted blue version that indicate that “TYPE OF ALCOHOL SPECIMEN TAKEN” 2 – BLOOD, and “TYPE OF DRUG SPECIMEN TAKEN” 1 – BLOOD. As clearly shown, the test results came back negative.

  9. After a good deal of time passed 3. 5 months ( May 15th) after the accident another investigative report was done. This new report was called “ AMENDED ACCIDENT REPORT TO SUPPLEMENT ORIGINAL REPORT” as seen below in the red box. But a closer look indicates many discrepancies and contradicting statements. Below highlighted yellow are the original factors that indicate what the original report said that Mr. Martinez ( UNIT 1 ) was cited for a # 37 ( Failed to Yield Right of Way ) with an addition now that Tommy Harmeyer the deceased ( UNIT 2 ) was also to blame now. The highlighted blue is UNIT 2 and that a # 61 ( Speeding over limit ) and # 41 ( Faulty Evasive Action ) was the cause of the accident.

  10. The determining factor for Sgt. Wade Parham’s conclusion that Tommy Harmeyer was speeding was based on an inaccurate science that is determined by the length of the skid marks left by the motorcycle during the accident. Many factors contribute to an accuracy that is far from 100%, including but not limited to μ=F/w which indicates coefficient of friction of an average weighted motorcycle, not Tommy’s motorcycle. Also the formula S=√30df which indicates speed traveled by d which is distance of skid marks that is inaccurate based on photos taken of the skids, and f which is the coefficient of friction of an average motorcycle based on it having 100% braking efficiency, not Tommy Harmeyer’s motorcycle. On top of the math being inaccurate, Mr. Martinez moved his car prior to police arrival which would invalidate and void any such mathematical equations that could be done. Such proof of the vehicle being moved will be brought up on the later part of this presentation. Secondly, Officer Wade came to the conclusion that Tommy contributed to the accident by “Faulty Evasive Action” by the inaccurate statements of Mr. Martinez who has contradicted himself in several of the reports. That too will be discussed.

  11. The Summary of findings, as previously discussed, are shown here how the investigator came to the conclusion that the speed of Tommy Harmeyer's motorcycle was traveling at the speed of 31 miles per hour or greater. It goes on the basis that his tire marks indicate a braking skid of 27.5 ft, then with a slide of 25 feet with a grand total of 52.5 ft. As the pictures prove in the following slide, the road marks claimed do not back up this statement.

  12. This is the first brake marks that are suppose to show the initial 27.5 feet of tires marks of when the brakes were first applied. To my knowledge, 27.5 feet are not shown here. This picture is exactly the direction Tommy was traveling before the impact as Mr. Martinez was crossing the double yellow lines and into the shopping center parking lot to your right.

  13. This is the apparent 25 foot slide following the initial 27.5 ft of the motorcycle after it fell to its side and slid into Mr. Martinez’s car .

  14. This is an overview of the road marks from official pictures taken by Officer Murphree. Do these 2 skid marks equal 52.5 feet to you? The skid labeled “2” is the initial brake slide that is supposedly 27.5 feet, and the skid labeled “1” is the supposedly 25 foot slide of the bike, to me this does not equal 52.5 feet which is what the final report suggests. This picture also indicates a natural reaction taken by an individual who had someone pull directly in front of their path in a matter of a split second. The entrance to the private drive Mr. Martinez was entering is where the police officers are standing. Take note of the silver Nissan Sentra directly behind the police. The position of this car indicates a contradiction to the original police report and contradicts a direct impact from the picture shown in slide 5. The position of this car proves it was moved before police arrival. We will get to that segment later on.

  15. After viewing the previous slides, would you come to the conclusion that the method used to determine if Mr. Harmeyer was speeding and thus contributed to his demise, is an accurate statement? According to the San Marcos Police Department it is. So what are the results of this outcome? Mr. Martinez did not receive any punishment other than a minor traffic violation and his insurance company is not liable for any damages because, technically, Tommy was speeding of an excess of 1 mile over the speed limit. That’s right, the calculation of speed in regards to Sc= √S1² + S2²speed lost during the braking skid and speed lost during the slide say he was going 31mph in a 30mph zone.

  16. This is the VOLUNTARY STATEMENT made by Steve Martinez shortly after the accident. He states “I was heading west on University Drive. I turned on my blinker and slowed to turn into the Nelson Center. I looked for oncoming traffic and I observed it was clear to turn. As I turned I saw a man lay down his motorcycle and he struck me in the passenger side. I immediately exited my car and went for assistance. I was in lane closest to center lane and began to initiate the turn when I was struck”.According to this statement Mr. Martinez never moved his car. This would invalidate the initial reenactment sketch in slide 6 in where his vehicle was placed. This statement also contradicts a direct impact because his vehicle was now placed at an angle. Let the new and modified reenactment sketch explain on the next slide.

  17. The narrative reenactment bordered with red is the original report which more accurately describes the evidence. It shows Mr. Martinez pulling directly in front of Tommy Harmeyer. The original narrative explains the direct impact that the picture in slide 5 concludes. The original reenactment contradicts the final placement of the car which the previous slide indicates. Remember what Mr. Martinez said? “I immediately exited my car and went for assistance”? Well the picture of the scene and that statement don’t go hand in hand. So Dustin Slaughter comes up with another narrative reenactment, the one with a yellow highlighted border. Now this is what the photos at the scene depict. Only two problems here. One, the car’s placement does not indicate the direct head on damage the car sustained in slide 5. Second, the following documents prove that Mr. Martinez did indeed move his car. Did Mr. Martinez run over the body after impact?

  18. Described below explains how the scene was undisturbed as Mr. Martinez describes. “As it was evident that a death has occurred as a result of this collision, the scene was undisturbed until a justice of the Peace could arrive. This is required by law”. This is part of the updated version that is also a part of the 2nd reenactment. It’s the updated version that gives misleading calculation variables to give a false determination of speed. It’s the updated version that gives Tommy Harmeyer a leading role in the accident. It’s the undated version that tested Tommy Harmeyer's blood for alcohol and drugs and not Mr. Martinez. Only one problem, this whole final Narrative Report is wrong and is disturbingly contradictory.

  19. These contradict the police department’s statements in the Narrative Report. Mr. Martinez did after all, move his car after killing Tommy. “Measurements for Diagram” to the left say “Estimated Rest of Vehicle: (Vehicle had been moved prior to Police Arrival)” Then down below in the circled red box it mentions, “ Steve Arthur Martinez told officers that he moved the vehicle several feet immediately after the collision.” Something that I wish I could show you but can’t, the body of Tommy Harmeyer was not in a spot that was inconsistent of the accident described to you. This indicates that the body was moved prior to police arrival. Who moved the body? Or may I say what moved the body? Maybe a car moving around in the street trying to drag a dead body off of it? The next slide shows a very important piece of evidence that seems to conclude that Mr. Martinez not only moved his car but why.

  20. This picture indicates the final resting place of the motorcycle prior to police arrive vs. the spot where the accident first began. You can see the bike is upright which is due to the police setting the bike up after arrival. It is in the exact same spot where it was found but on its side. How did the bike end up so far away from the initial impact? It looks to me like the bikes throttle was on and stayed on due to the handle bars touching the street. But the bike hit the car straight on according to the damage the side door sustained? So how did the bike end up so far away? My opinion is that the bike was lodged underneath the car and when Steve Martinez moved it he freed the bike from underneath by running it over and possibly running over Tommy as well. That hypothesis backs up the claim on how the body was moved from after impact and some of the physical body damagages that Tommy sustained. Then the bike could continue on its path on its side many more feet to its final resting spot.

  21. If you look at the picture that shows the side of the bike you will see yellow paint from the parking lot bumpers . There is also another arrow showing scrape marks where the bike slid on the ground as well. The bike was found when police arrived on its right side. Then when you notice the gas tank on the picture directly below there appears to be a dent in it, along with what appears to be a tire mark. Closer examination of the fuel tank to the left of this slide helps give a possible indication on what it might be. Since the mark is on the left side of the fuel tank, the bike was laid down on its right side, then where did that mark come from? In my opinion another indication that the bike slid into Mr. Martinez’s car and he drove over the bike when it’s front end was lodged underneath his car. This would also explain why the seat has been torn off the bike.

  22. I would like to leave you with one more piece of damning evidence against the San Marcos Police Department. Below is the sign off sheet of the Incident Report. Officer Tracy Balusek who entered Mr. Martinez’s original statement and described the original incident, did not sign her approval of the overall investigative report. While Officer Rodney VanOudekerke who Investigated it was the only one who approved the Incident Report. All of this evidence is tainted by the San Marcos Police Department which did a terrible job covering up their tracks in regards to discrepancies. Mr. Martinez received no punishment other than a traffic ticket for blatantly disobeying our traffic laws and killing an outstanding young man who gave everything of himself to help others. Why are so many lies and discrepancies being shown here? Is there some sort of cover up inside the San Marcos Police Department? Does Mr. Martinez have some odd affiliation to someone on the inside? Is someone on the inside trying to take the liability of Tommy Harmeyer's death off of Steven Martinez’s hands, or the delivery service that employed Mr. Martinez? Makes one only wonder why such a massive cover up exists.

  23. Lets find Justice For Tommy Harmeyer