Detectives disagree on whether trucker could see cyclist
Defence lawyer for driver in fatal collision challenges accuracy of reconstruction
Two detectives reached opposite conclusions on whether Steven Conley could see the cyclist from the driver’s seat of his dump truck in the moments before fatally striking 23-year-old Nusrat Jahan.
Det.-Const. Alain Boucher, a veteran officer with the Ottawa police collision investigations unit, acknowledged the discrepancy in court Thursday under a full day of cross-examination by Conley’s lead defence lawyer Dominic Lamb.
Conley pleaded not guilty last week to dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death in the Sept. 1, 2016, morning rushhour collision at the corner of Laurier Avenue and Lyon Street.
In court Thursday, Lamb dissected the collision analysis Boucher conducted in November 2016 after taking over from fellow Det. Greg Rhoden, who was removed from the case for “unrelated reasons,” court heard.
Rhoden, who has not been called to testify, came to the opposite conclusion of Boucher, writing in his initial draft report that Conley could not see Jahan on her bicycle while the two were stopped at the intersection waiting for the light to change.
Boucher’s report, completed later and filed as Crown evidence at trial, stated the cyclist should have been “clearly visible and unobstructed.”
In earlier testimony Wednesday, Boucher amended his conclusion, telling court Conley “may or may not have seen the cyclist,” after noting an error in the measurement of the bike lane stop line. Boucher said he was not aware when he took measurements that city officials had moved the stop line back 42 cm following the collision.
Rhoden’s earlier analysis was not included in Boucher’s report, and Boucher acknowledged in court he never spoke with his fellow detective about the case, or about the contradictory conclusion regarding Conley’s blind spot.
Lamb further noted Rhoden’s initial draft report was not disclosed to the defence until two days prior to the start of trial.
“If (Rhoden’s) blind spot analysis is correct, it is exculpatory in favour of the accused, Mr. Conley,” said Lamb. “It is evidence he did not see the cyclist at the stop line.”
Boucher testified he did not include his colleague’s report because it was “incomplete,” and he did not agree with the method Rhoden used in his reconstruction.
Lamb noted the dump truck used in Rhoden’s re-enactment was a closer replica to the Tomlinson truck driven by Conley than the one used later in Boucher’s reenactment.
“We’re not always successful in obtaining the exact same vehicle,” said Boucher, who used a four-axle City of Ottawa truck as a standin for the three-axle Tomlinson truck. The models were eight years apart in age.
Boucher said he did not measure the seat height of Conley ’s vehicle.
Lamb pressed Boucher on further inconsistencies in the detective’s collision reconstruction report, noting a “significant mistake” in the height of the driver.
Boucher enlisted a stand-in truck driver standing 5-feet-7, and mounted a camera two inches above his eye line to simulate Conley ’s height, which police had listed at 5-feet-9.
Conley, as he demonstrated by standing before the court, is actually 5-feet-4.
“There was a mistake, yes,” said Boucher, who said he could not explain how police erroneously added the extra five inches for its blind spot analysis.
Lamb also noted a half-inch discrepancy between Jahan’s height and that of the model they used as a stand-in for the cyclist during the re-enactment.
Boucher’s report also cited a measurement of Jahan’s bicycle, which they had placed at 26 inches. The bicycle actually measured 24-inches, Lamb said.
Lamb called into question the precision of the report, and also questioned Boucher’s two roles in the case — one assisting the investigation, and the other as an impartial expert.
Boucher, the defence noted, had already met Conley on Sept. 9, 2016, the day he turned himself in to police headquarters to answer to the charges. He was later released on a promise to appear in court.