(As it's better to read from the original source that the writer of the above piece used to write their piece, he said, not being sure if he were being snarky or honest)
If driving were as dangerous as that we'd have no commerce! Imagine being fully liable for injuries you cause while mindlessly travelling at high speeds across populated areas. Nobody could afford to do it!
Words mean things. Murder requires the intent to kill. Occasionally people are murdered by someone with a car, but an accident - even an entirely avoidable accident caused by gross recklessness - is not murder.
Some jurisdictions have the felony murder rule (abolished in the UK in 1957). That means it could be murder if you kill somebody while committing a felony, which includes drunk driving and fleeing in a police chase (and things like forgery and cybercrime, less relevantly).
In the US, depending on the state, murder need not require intent to kill or cause death. For example, 3rd degree murder in Minnesota explicitly states that the perpetrator acted without intent to cause death [1].
The theory behind murder requiring intent is very reasonable but, at least by statute, isn't actual legal practice.
How does the saying go? "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, kill them with your car!" We are so lenient on traffic violence, at least in the USA.
Not defending the driver, but there's no pavement/sidewalk on the piece of most of that road, although the visibility is good and it was 10am on a Saturday
He would most likely have been trying to cross the road to continue his run on the path on the other side. I've run this route along the river myself.
This area is part of the Fenland, so the land is very flat. As a result the road bridge over the river is raised up above the level of the surrounding area.
This means that as he was crossing the road he would have been invisible to any car approaching from the other side of the bridge until it crested the bridge. It's entirely possible that a car travelling fast - the speed limit on that road is 60mph but plenty of people exceed it - could have come over the bridge and the driver would have seen him too late to stop in time.
The placement of the footpath crossing, unsighted from one direction, is - as you can tell - far from ideal.
When I'm driving on that road I ease off approaching the bridge: in part this is because I know there's that footpath crossing the road on the other side. But it's also - and whilst I don't want to be too harsh to the driver involved here there's really no excuse for this having happened - because I'm not a complete moron and know that, regardless of how well I think I know the road, it's unwise to go over a blind crest at speed, and especially in a heavily agricultural area where large, slow moving farm machinery is a commonplace site on local roads.
Is it clear it happened out of town? I googled, and articles, including the one you linked, say "Newmarket Road" in Stretham. And within that town, there seem to be pavements.
Just curious, as you say doesn't make it any less bad for the driver. Though it would be that little bit more mysterious if the Autonomy codefendant was struck on the pavement.
I can't recall ever witnessing a pedestrian being hit by a car, nor a near miss, except two days ago when someone darted into traffic, and indeed it was a kid. Luckily it was fairly pedestrianised area (which may have given the kid the impression it was safe to dart) so the traffic was quite slow and able to stop in time, so no major harm was done but the poor parents must have had a minor heart attack.
Maybe a bit less snark and a bit more kindness is called for here?
One person is fatally injured, another confirmed dead, and severel others are missing, perhaps dead too. Many people who know them will be hurting right now.
There are few things as chilling as the realization that corporations and other interests may not be above trying to kill you. It is not as bad as the realization that political killings in US happen as well, but it is up there.
If I am not mistaken the "fraud trial" referenced in the title is not the trial in the case brought by HP. HP won, though they may have appealed the amount of the settlement. The title likely refers to the criminal trial in the case brought by the US government where the defendants were acquitted on all charges.
It's a fun conspiracy that both co-defendants died within a day or two of eachother, but how the hell would the conspirators have sank a yacht this way? "It sank quickly after being hit by a waterspout at 4:30 a.m. during a storm that broke the mainmast, possibly unbalancing and capsizing the yacht."
Don't underestimate the capabilities of Sicilian organized crime especially on their own territory. I guess a spacious penthouse in New York could easily stir a tiny local tornado nearby Sicily.
If you already "prepared" the yacht - say bought the cooperation of some member of the crew or planted some device or, that being a modern yacht, hacked something on it - that would have been a great time to trigger it. The yacht was a sitting duck on that anchorage. I really was surprised that such a yacht went down that way, especially given that ships nearby were just fine. Now, with that guy in England dying the way Russian oppositioners die there, my surprise got resolved.
And remembering how those EBay execs went after those people only for bad reviews, one can imagine what the people like this can do when it comes to real money. And the scale of the money involved here can buy impressively "accidental" accidents.
The yacht had the 2nd tallest mast (tallest aluminium mast). The tornado/waterspout snapped the mast, which made the ship unbalanced and capsize. It sank quickly after that.
Not that out of the ordinary. There was another waterspout photographed in Italy that same day; they’re not that uncommon.
>snapped the mast, which made the ship unbalanced and capsize.
that sounds strange for a sailboat designed to keel a lot. And the unbroken mast has higher leverage, yet the boat keels without capsizing. And capsizing is usually not that great an issue too.
As someone with a sailboat who sails just about every week (since I live on it and have to keep moving) I'm also having a pretty hard time understanding this one.
In high winds removing the mast should make it less prone to capsizing just like reefing would.
EDIT: Oh I see they're thinking it's the waves not the wind.
>Counterintuitively [a boat with a tall mast] will be be more capsize resistant, capsize is a dynamic phenomenon and increase mast height provides a vastly disproportionate increase in roll moment of inertia which resists capsize. Stability is a static phenomenon even when the boat is moving thru the water and provides little if any resistance to capsize.
They had already been acquitted, sinking a yacht in a freak tornado makes zero sense as a way of assassinating someone, and the woman who hit Stephen Chamberlain with her car remained at the scene.
It's just more fun this way, isn't it? It might be rude or tone deaf but I don't think that anyone is serious on claiming that it was an assassination.
How could "they?" had pulled it off?
Scenario 1: They risk losing their money and go to jail because they expect that the court decision be reversed over some evidence they expect to surface. Both are actually alive, Lynch sabotaged his yacht to fake his death, used the storm to make it plausible. The co-defendant falsified hospital records, it was all coordinated based on the weather forecast.
Scenario 2: Someone held responsible over the huge loss decided to send a message. Paid someone to sabotage the yacht, knowing Lynch's plans to sail and the weather forecast also killed the co-defendant by making someone hit him on his daily jogging rutine.
Both unplausible, still fun. Murder mystery and conspiracy are popular genre.
And let's not forget there were plenty of other rich and powerful people on that yacht - for example the international chair of Morgan Stanley is also missing.
Though Morgan Stanley did downgrade HP on the 19th causing a 3.5% stock fall....
The only reason I can't go full tinfoil on this is that it takes a hell of a lot of things working out to fake your death by sailing into a fortuitous freak tornado. How would you even plan and execute that? If he'd just disappeared from the boat in the night or something it would be a different story.
Currently duck-duck-go-ing "hewlett packard weather engineering".
It is now clear that all those Climate Research super computers HP has been involved in have yielded unexpected new capabilities... please subscribe to my newsletter to learn more.
Why was yacht move to deeper waters shortly before it sank ??
A submarine needs depth
A large submarine venting it's ballast tanks beneath a ship could easily sink a 52 metre yacht
Bodies found aboard yacht, most likely dead before yacht was sunk
The issue may not necessarily be the whole 11B. Just theoretical example from an imaginary world - say A buys something worth 5B from B for a very inflated price of 11B using somebody else's money, and B promises to kick-back to A a half of that over-payment, i.e. say 3B. And refuses to do that after the deal is done. That would probably make A very angry.
2024-08-17 Saturday morning: Chamberlain hit by car
2024-08-19 Monday early morning: Yacht "Bayesian" sinks
2024-08-19 Monday morning: First news reporting of the car accident (doesn't get much attention)
2024-08-19 Monday morning: First reporting of Lynch missing
2024-08-20 Tuesday: First reports of Chamberlain's death
So, the car accident was before the maritime incident. It is not clear to me when Chamberlain died.
if you can find the spontaneous rates of yachts sinking with eventually dead or missing people and spontaneous rates of people getting hit by a car and dying, you can calculate the likelihood for 2 such unordered events appearing within a surprisingly short amount of time.
obviously the p-value for the null hypothesis that this is just random coincidence is miniscule in this case.
in the long run formal verification and statistics will publically catch up with all these shenanigans.
Anyone at HP that is reading, I just want to appologies for calling your printer a "piece of garbage designed by idiots". I didnt mean it, I am very sorry and I will be renewing my subscription today.
Nevertheless, I will be avoiding jogging and yachts for the next few months.
not related to HP, but in the same way German officials were found to have corrupted Portuguese politicians over the purchase of 3 submarines, yet the Portuguese police didn't find any wrongdoing.
To corrupt "corrupted" government officials would be more exact. Unless you think Germany has some moral high ground on Portugal which just the last 100 of history years should give you different ideas about comparing countries outright like this.
In context of Germany I heard multiple times a phrase "ethical superpower" used unironically. I that helps, both Poland and Portugal would be in "corrupted" basket.
