On a clear night, on a straight road, at a time when none of the four people in her car were talking, cell phones weren't being used and the radio wasn't on, Rachel L. Enderle, with her hands on the wheel and her eyes straight ahead, didn't see Ronald J. Wendt's truck until a second before her Toyota Camry hit it.
Wendt, on trial for manslaughter and reckless driving, is accused of turning left on Route 20 at the location of My Saloon in Darien Center, right in front of 27-year-old Enderle's car.
Enderle's Camry plowed into the side of the Dodge Ram truck, and Enderle apparently neither hit her brakes nor swerved to avoid the accident.
Katie Stanley, 18, died as a result of the accident. She was a passenger in Enderle's car.
Alexander resident Wendt, 25, could serve up to 25 years in prison if convicted by the 12-person jury of aggravated reckless driving.
Enderle testified today that she wasn't distracted in any way prior to the accident, though she was probably going 55 mph in the 40 mph zone. The Dansville resident testified that she didn't see the lower speed limit signs when driving into the hamlet.
The only thing she remembers is seeing the maroon passenger side door of Wendt's truck just before hitting it.
"I didn't know where it came from," Enderle said.
She said she had no time to react.
"In my head and my heart, I do feel like I got my foot on the brake," Enderle said."I don’t know if pushed down on it."
While another witness testified that Wendt had his headlights on, Enderle said she didn't see the headlights of his truck approaching from the east.
Two of the three witnesses who testified today could not recall with certainty whether Wendt used his turn signal.
Another witness, Amanda McClellan, who was standing on the recessed porch of My Saloon, and couldn't possibly have had a clear view of Wendt's truck as it approached the spot of the accident, said Wendt didn't have his turn signal on.
While Enderle said she had no time to react, another driver, Brian C. Fox, of Portageville, said he was two or three seconds behind Enderle's Toyota, managed to slam on the brakes of his pickup truck and stop five feet short of the collision.
Fox said he saw Wendt's truck -- with headlights on -- down the road before Wendt started his turn, but said Wendt turned quickly right in front of Enderle's car.
Asked by District Attorney Lawrence Friedman his opinion on whether the driver of the Toyota could possibly have had time to react, Fox said, "There was nothing they could do."
Speed, of course, is an important factor in reaction time.
Both Fox and Enderle testified that they couldn't say for sure how fast they were going, but there were driving with the flow of traffic.
Evidence indicates that Fox told investigators after the accident that he was going 55 mph. Today, Fox testified that he said he was going 55 because he thought that was the speed limit on that stretch of Broadway Road.
Today, he initially testified that he must have been going between 45 mph and 55 mph.
At a DMV hearing some months ago, Fox testified that he may have been going as fast as 60 mph.
McClellan testified that she thought Enderle was traveling at about the speed limit, or 40 mph. She estimated Wendt's speed to be between 30 and 40 mph as he went into the turn into the parking lot, though she admitted she didn't hear his tires squeal or see his truck fishtail.
Both Enderle and McClellan testified that beer cans and bottles flew from the bed of Wendt's truck at the time of impact. McClellan said there were as many as 20 beer containers on the ground near the accident scene.
"A man had said let’s get these cans and bottles out of here before the cops get here," Enderle said.
Testimony in the Wendt trial resumes in the morning.
A whole lot of "he said - she
A whole lot of "he said - she said" going on here. I don't think empty beer containers in the bed of the truck are illegal. We have bottle and can returns in this state and everyone brings back empties. I know I sometimes toss an empty beer can/bottle into the bed of my truck that I've consumed while mowing my lawn. Oops..better be careful what I say. I could get an open container citation for drinking a beer while mowing the lawn with my rider mower, possibly even a DUI.
Was Wendt even charged with DWI? How could his speed prior to the accident even be relevant? He couldn't make a 90 degree, left turn at 55 or 60 MPH. Making a left turn into a parking lot in front of another vehicle surely is a bad mistake but the whole accident is confusing to me.
I've watched police pull out blinker/brake bulbs to see if the element was in use at the time of impact. It's not an exact science but they do look at those things. Did they do that too see if Wendt's blinker was on? I'm so confused.
I drive on Broadway every day and the constant changing speed limits do make it difficult to perfectly comply in every zone. I've been known to decelerate from 55 mph while in slower speed zones and possibly speed up when I can see the speed limit sign indicating that the slower speed zone has ended. My thoughts are that when traffic is light and condition are clear, even though speed is still a factor, being attentive and driving defensively are the more important factors. Hold your lane, pay attention to what the other drivers might do and adjust your driving accordingly.
Anyone who has taken their MANY's course knows this as "SEE." Search, Evaluate, Execute.
"Two of the three witnesses
"Two of the three witnesses who testified today could recall with certainty whether Wendt used his turn signal."
This sentence makes no since...either the witnesses "could recall with certainty that Wendt used his turn signal"
or "the witnesses could not recall..."
The truth WILL come out.
The truth WILL come out.
Note: Somebody took exception
Note: Somebody took exception to my writing, "couldn't possibly have had a clear view of Wendt's truck as it approached the spot of the accident ..."
Saying it was editorializing.
To me, it's an observation. Based on where McClellan said she was and what she said she saw, it doesn't add up to me, and since I don't have access to the image used as evidence to show where she was in relation to the roadway, I thought I should share my observation.
Obviously, not everybody is going to agree with that observation.
I trust no jurors are reading our coverage. If they are, certainly they should draw their own conclusions based on the evidence they hear in court. Because we must compress for time and space, the jurors hear and see much more than we could ever report.
We try to be as honest and accurate as we can, but there are inherent difficulties in providing all of the information that comes out in court. We do the best we can to accurately portray what we observe.
And we welcome other points of view, which is why I thought I'd go ahead and share the objection to that sentence.
It reminds me of a case some
It reminds me of a case some years back, where the witnesses contradicted each others testimony. This is an example of how difficult it really is to be a juror, you have to sort through the evidence, and decide whose testimony made the most sense, and most closely matches the evidence presented by both prosecution and defense.
Cheers to that, Chris. The
Cheers to that, Chris. The truth WILL set you free.