• Home
• News
• Latest News

With new video

CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE — Engineer Richard Ruth told jurors in Trooper Robert Higbee's vehicular homicide trial that Higbee was traveling 65 mph in the moments before he crashed into another car at an Upper Township intersection.

Ruth, a former Ford Motor Co. employee who works as a private consultant, analyzed the data collected by the event data recorder, or EDR, taken from Higbee's 2005 Ford Crown Victoria police interceptor.

The EDR, sometimes called a vehicle's black box, records more than a dozen types of information in its powertrain control module, or PCM, but Ruth focused on the speed, braking and acceleration recorded by the PCM in the 25 seconds before the crash.

Ruth said the PCM is “the brain that runs the engine in Ford Motor Co. products.”

Higbee ran the stop sign at the intersection of Tuckahoe and Stagecoach roads on Sept. 27, 2006, colliding with a Dodge Caravan minivan occupied by Jacqueline Becker, 17, and her sister, Christina Becker, 19. The Upper Township sisters died at the scene. Five months later Higbee was indicted on two counts of vehicular homicide.

Ruth, testifying for the prosecution as an expert witness, told First Assistant Prosecutor J. David Meyer that the PCM recorded a final speed of 65 mph. The device stopped recording upon impact because the crash destroyed the police car's battery, causing it to lose power.

Using a series of charts, Ruth took jurors through those last 25 seconds, tracing the police car's path as it moved between a maximum of 79.6 mph and the final impact speed.

Ruth said the car initially accelerated to 75 mph as Higbee attempted to catch a speeder traveling north on Stagecoach Road. That took place at least 2,300 feet and between 25 and 20 seconds from the point of impact, he said.

From there, the car maintained a speed between 70 and 80 mph for about 14 seconds. The car then coasted as Higbee touched the brake intermittently between 2.8 and 6 seconds before the collision, he said.

"The foot (of the driver) is going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth," Ruth said.

Ruth said the speed remained at about 75 mph as late as 1.6 seconds before the crash or between 276 to 166 feet before impact.

"The foot of the driver is not touching the brake pedal at that time," Ruth said.

Ruth said the car then entered a final phase, which he called the avoid impact phase, in the 1.4 seconds to two-tenths of a second before impact.

It is during that period, he said, that the speed rapidly declined and that the brake was depressed "with enough force to slow the vehicle significantly."

"That last two-tenths of a second here is consistent with hard braking," Ruth said.

But it was not enough to avoid the collision.

For Higbee to have stopped in time, Ruth said, he would have had to begin braking at last 300 feet from the point of impact, given the speeds he was traveling.

During his cross-examination, defense attorney D. William Subin focused on Ruth's work for the Cape May County Prosecutor's Office and the testing Ruth performed on a 2005 Ford Crown Victoria police interceptor in 2007.

He noted that Ruth was serving as paid consultant at the rate of $200 per hour, and that Ruth first offered his services to the county in February 2008 after a current Ford engineer was not required to testify in the case.

Ruth tested a similar vehicle in a series of tests in 2007, but he said only a portion of those test results had undergone peer review by professionals.

Ruth also testified that EDRs were not created specifically for accident reconstruction or investigation, but rather as a tool for manufacturers to assess their cars’ safety.

Subin added that Ford has not crash-tested the EDRs, but Ruth said the EDRs are "tested during normal operation" of Ford vehicles.

Subin asked if EDRs could replace more traditional investigation methods such as the momentum analysis used by the State Police in Higbee's case.

“The (powertrain control module) is one more tool, but it does contain information above and beyond the momentum analysis," Ruth said.

The trial will resume Tuesday morning after the Memorial Day holiday with the continuing cross-examination of Sgt. 1st Class John McMahon, an accident reconstructionist with the State Police.

Superior Court Judge Raymond Batten also told the jurors that testimony would be heard on Friday, May 29. Normally, the trial has been held only on Mondays through Thursdays.

E-mail Trudi Gilfillian:

TGilfillian@pressofac.com

More Coverage

• Higbee jury goes home for the day, will resume deliberations Monday

51 comments:

• C4Marine (1) posts 3:58 pm

  Keep in mind the Higbee was not put on desk duty by his command but rather suspended without pay, pending the outcome of the trial, despite his union representation. This is an indication that his own commanders and peers believe he was negligent. I do not believe he should serve any jail time. However, he has to be held accountable for the deaths of these two girls and must be found guilty of negligent homicide and hopefully sentenced to probation of three to five years. We cannot have officers blowing through intersections (stop sign or not) at freeway speeds just to "close the gap", or accidents like this will happen time and time again and the next time it could be our children who are killed. I appreciate the job that our officers do each and every day to keep us safe from predators, criminals and the wreckless. But, to be wreckless themselves in carrying out these duties puts us all at risk and futher jeopardizes our safety.

• abc123 (19) posts 11:31 am

  It could just have easily been the SECOND stop sign just up the road. It's common for drivers to look "past" the closer stop sign when you have more than one in alignment.

• lised2058 (0) posts 3:59 pm

  I hope the jury gets it because the prosecution missed it. Trooper Higbee claims he did not see the stop sign but he had reason to believe there was some type of obstruction/traffic control device because Wigglesworth, the speeder, stopped at the stop sign. That youngster feeling he was going to be pulled over would not have ignored the stop sign, therefore, the brake lights would have illuminated and the Trooper would have seen that and that is why he slowed down. The Taylors never saw a speeding vehicle because at that point there was none and their attention was focused on the muskrat. If Trooper Higbee takes the stand and I was the prosecutor that would be one of my primary questions in cross.

• BenDover (32) posts 9:05 am

  Jail for this Cowboy's negligence will be more waste of taxpayer monies. Although I feel six months for each charge is appropriate; the sentence should include tasking him with developing a "high school assembly" type presentation. He should be required to come up with implementation plans while locked up. He should then be tasked with having to hold money raising memorial events, each Memorial Day weekend for 15 years. These monies he could use to make improvements to any intersection in the county that needs them. This quasi juror concluded guilt the minute they played his audio taped under oath statement.

• copsreallyrpigs (125) posts 8:49 am

  ConcernedCitizen......I guess it all comes down to what the jury believes about the speeder combined with his speed and what else he may have been doing at the time. Given the state police' past propensity for lying after they screw up/cover up when they get caught doing something wrong (especially after Corzines "accident") it's impossible for me to give any of them the benefit of the doubt in these situations, and I'm far from alone in feeling that way. I believe there was no speeder and he was just having a little fun with his high powered toy. Since there was no way he could have missed the advisory sign signaling the impending stop sign ahead he must have been distracted either by texting or something else until his peripheral vision picked up the van. By then it was too late to stop and 2 people died. If I'm right all that adds up to prison for Higbee. Recklessness + 2 deaths = Criminality = Vehicular homicide. Even if the jury doesn't convict him that doesn't mean they got it right either. I offer the OJ Simpson fiasco as proof of that. So in my eyes it looks like Higbee ignored the laws of man until the laws of physics caught up to him at the intersection of Tuckahoe and Stagecoach roads that fateful night and just like all criminals would do in similar circumstances, he's now looking to say or do anything to get out from under charges, which all together makes him a lying, arrogant coward.

• My_opinion (149) posts 7:03 am

  ConcernedCitizen: I too have questioned faith in the judicial system in the past (anyone that's been through a divorce would, LOL)....But I have to remind myself that's it's better that a guilty man go free then an innocent man be jailed. They are the principles I was taught and that I believe in. I'm sure you're right and people will continue to post extremely hateful or distasteful things, that have nothing to do with the charge, against an entire profession and/or unit, or the Becker girls, or the Taylor's, in an effort to sway others that are reading but it's disheartening to see.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 12:09 am

  "copsreallyrpigs" you described a joy ride and an abuse of their position. That is wreckless. This isn't the same because Higbee was performing official duty. It's about his mindset at the intersection. Did he see the sign? Did he see the sign and blatantly run through it? Did he look as he approaced the intersection and it appeared clear and he continued through? I don't for a minute believe he saw the sign AND the girls and blew through. Only he knows what happened and he now has a credibility issue. And I'm sure Subin has a specialist who will testify as to memory problems with Higbee and his head injury. I myself would have an awful hard time believing him.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 11:46 pm

  "My_opinion" it's not as though they don't understand? They do understand. Sides have been taken and regardless of the facts or the outcome there are those who won't budge. This is where I can lose faith in the legal system because you really don't know what the juror really thinks or what his/her opinion is during the jury process. When the trial is over it's really not gonna be over.

• copsreallyrpigs (125) posts 11:31 pm

  All those who keep saying over and over again that Higbee is the only person in NJ being charged with vehicular homicide without alcohol being involved might want to get their facts straight. On August 12th 2008 Lt. Keith Buckley of the North Brunswick PD was on duty at 11am joyriding in a rented Dodge Viper. Sitting next to him was on duty Lt. Christopher Zerby also of the NBPD. Buckley was doing 94MPH in a 45MPH zone on Route 130 in North Brunswick and hit a utility pole, killing his passenger in the process. Buckley was charged with vehicular homicide, same as Higbee, with reckless speed as the aggravating factor in the charges, no alcohol or drugs were involved.(at least that's what was reported) Apparently Higbee isn't the only moronic cop out there. At least in Buckleys case an innocent person wasn't killed, just another imbecile cop. I can just picture these 2 peabrains as they sped down Rt 130 at more than double the speed limit(both in uniform I might add) "look at me, I'm the police. I can do anything I want. Do as I say not as I do" You can bet they were thinking along those lines and I for one am glad they hit that pole before they killed an innocent pedestrian or motorist. I wonder what either one of them would had done had they encountered a motorist driving at that reckless speed while on duty? How do the police spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e? It all goes back to traffic laws and their real intent, which is to make m-o-n-e-y! It's a form of legal racketeering, nothing more. The police themselves obviously don't believe the same baloney they spew out about "public safety" if they can do what Higbee and Buckley did and defend them.

• My_opinion (149) posts 11:23 pm

  Bendover: Lying is not inherent. You have been involved in this matter since we started so you know that I don't agree with the lying and that I think there were some dishonest things that occurred here after the accident. That doesn't change the charge. If you remember, I thought, and still think, the charge was appropriate. It also doesn't change my opinions as to the potential verdict. But jury's aren't perfect. They do things that surprise people all the time. I personally think that for the reasons I posted previously, reasonable doubt FOR THE CHARGE has been established. I believe in the judicial process and I believe in karma. Eventually everyone gets what they deserve.

• My_opinion (149) posts 11:04 pm

  TDogg: Braking 1 second before the impact is part of the recorder information. The reason intent has been brought up over and over is because it has to do with the legal standard for the one issue that he is charged with, not the emotional factor. This trial is only about the criminal factor even though it's connected to extreme emotion - both ways. Those of us posters with decades of experience in these matters and/or specific knowledge of the facts, have been involved in this matter from the beginning. We (there have been quite a few) are recognizing that the majority of people posting are full of hate and extreme views riddled with hate, citizens and police alike. It is obvious that many don't understand the process at hand and, recognizing that fact, many have tried to put the references in as many layman's terms as possible to explain the concepts only to be attacked. I used to think it was simple but after hearing person after person split hairs, and becomming frustrated myself, it is obvious it's not as simple as most people would like it to be. No one is disagreeing that there is an emotional factor but the emotional factor is not in the language of the criminal charge. The mob like mindset chanting guilty with these very simplistic and hate-filled view points attached don't sound like they belong in a sophisticated country like ours. They sound more like third-world and it's actually kind of shocking to me.

• BenDover (32) posts 9:51 pm

  The Prosecutor has already proven everything he set out to prove. He stated he was only half way thru his case. What else does he have? He seemed to place some importance with; at which time the 911 calls came in. Was he doing that for fancy? I think not. I think SFC McMahon should receive Trooper of the Year award for his dedication to this case. Unless I'm missing something he seems to be very professional. I didn't hear many "I don't recall"'s in his testimony. I think Higbee should receive an additional charge of Obstruction for lying under oath or is speeding and lying both inherent to the job?

• MoralMinority (0) posts 5:19 pm

  It's interesting to note, a majority of the comments on here are directed at the people posting other comments. My comment is directed at the trial and the reason there's even a trial in the 1st place. Do I think there should be a trial? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think I would have been charged were it me causing that wreck, instead of a member of law enforcement? ABSOLUTELY! When all is said and done, when the testimony, objections and final arguments are finished, there will still be the same indisputable facts remaining. A vehicle was traveling on Stagecoach road (a residential area)at nearly 45 mph above the posted speed limit. The driver's effort to reduce and/or stop was minimal and ineffective. And there are 2 young people dead as a result. Done in pursuit of a speeder who, had he been actually stopped and issued a ticket, would have been judged not-guilty if the ticket was contested because, the trooper would have lost sight of the person he claims he was pursuing and that driver could argue successfully the trooper could not have properly identified the person who had passed him as the same person he issued the the ticket to. Are we expected to believe the trooper did not know his location? Was not familiar with the road he was monitoring and/or its stops and intersections? I predict the trial is going to turn into a circus the moment the prosecution rests and this defense attorney starts.

• bltonenine (6) posts 4:39 pm

  So if he was patrolling the area for 5 years and knew at this particular intersection he was required to stop yet continued through, reckless. Guilty. Case closed.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 3:53 pm

  "bltonenine" now this is my opinion. If Higbee is riding or touching his brakes during this chase it tells me he's using caution and might have to stop. Did he see the sign? I don't know. I would say he had a good idea it was there because of the warning sign before that plus he has been patrolling that area for 5 years. I am wondering, distance wise from the intersection, when the Beckers came into view. The distance for Higbee and the distance for the girls. I don't believe Higbee would have thought the girls saw him and would stop. I definetly don't think Higbee saw them until the last second. There is no way he saw them and thought they would stop or that he could beat them. Plus he would have to worry about traffic approaching on the left? If Higbee takes the stand it would depend on what he says before I would believe him or not. The prosecution could rip him apart if he takes the stand because of his statements.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 3:35 pm

  "copsreallyrpigs" for there to be a cover-up they would have had to get to Wigglesworth and his friends before school started the next day. Now if all those friends start dying unexpectedly then I would have to think conspiracy!! The statement where Wigglesworth said he was at Roosevelt and Stagecoach when he saw the accident I don't believe. The Taylors and him had to cross paths if it were true. I don't know if Wigglesworth slowed to 35 mph like he said or tried to speed away but his story doesn't hold water. Since he was friends with the Becker girl then why would he of all people conspire against her? And no I wasn't happy about the Corzine incident.

• bltonenine (6) posts 3:16 pm

  I've been tossing this case around in my mind for about a week now. Did Higbee somehow not see the stop sign or the "stop ahead" sign preceeding it. The "stop ahead" sign was what, 350ft before the stop sign? At his speed it would take 350ft to stop anyhow. I think he saw that, probably started doing the brake-gas-brake-gas motion because he intended to blow through the intersection but wasn't sure if it was clear. Perhaps he saw the minivan and decided that they saw him and were slowing down. Who knows? Obviously intent has nothing to do with this. Was he INTENT on not stopping? Perhaps not... only he can answer that. If he was somehow distracted and didn't see the "Stop Ahead" sign OR the stop sign at the intersection, it's still RECKLESS. I'd be interested to know if any other accidents have occurred at that intersection due to sign visibility. Of course, your average driver isn't going to do twice the speed limit.

• T-Dogg (0) posts 3:15 pm

  Ahhhh yes, the old resort to insults when facts don't support you trick. Your 'seeing the sign at the last second' doesn't fit in anywhere as you claim. No testimony has stated that he saw the stop sign at the last second. You can not just make up something and pass it off as fact. You started off the comments on this article with valid points/issues, but have made yourself irrelevent by your continued insults of those who disagee with your version of things.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 3:14 pm

  "My_opinion" I think it's best that Meyer's try the case. The phantom speeder and Higbees statement would have left many to believe there was a cover-up had he not done so. Many have the attitude the Prosecutor works for the police. He doesn't. He works for the tax payer. And if there are crooked police out there I expect him to prosecute. Because of his job he is always gonna have a side angry with him. I don't like it when they go after the Becker family either or the Taylors. If Higbee isn't aquttied I'd expect a hung jury at most. Based on what I've heard on TV I don't think 12 people will find him guilty. They may be upset at his decision that night and his lie but I can't see a guilty verdict. The facts will get him off, not Subin. And no matter the outcome there will be hostility on the losing side. I hope the NJSP take a look at their procedures and make some changes.

• copsreallyrpigs (125) posts 3:09 pm

  ConcernedCitizen...... you say "the day AFTER the accident Wigglesworth found out what happened the night before at school from his girlfriend" Right? Well this 'speeder" TESTIFIED that he saw the crash from his rearview mirror! Let me guess he "saw" it but didn't really "see" it right? What convoluted baloney! Sounds to me like he's trying to leave himself a little wigglesworth of storytelling room............I'm far from alone in knowing this whole story is BS and Higbee, like any other criminal, obviously will say and do anything not to pay for his crime. The NJ state police are so great at preaching about taking responsibility for your own actions, showing remorse, and paying for your crimes but Higbees case show what sniveling cowards they all really are. We see in this case a splendid example of the "character" "honor" and "integrity" they speak of when they describe themselves. We saw all the lies with Corzines accident and we see it here. They say to test someones character give them power. I would say the state police have failed this test miserably! The heroic myth doesn't match the coward reality.

• My_opinion (149) posts 2:18 pm

  ConcernedCitizen: Amazing hunh?!

• urallexperts (0) posts 2:15 pm

  tdogg, what I said fits this case,,, yours is a statement of fancy, try understanding all of what is going on here not just what you think is important. Keep trying,,,your might even get it one day,,,,,,if you can find a small enough can opener to poke a hole in that pea brain of yours........good luck......up your medication......

• My_opinion (149) posts 1:52 pm

  Attacking the girls will only intensify the hate toward the police in general and most especially toward Higbee. Way to go.....

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 1:45 pm

  "copsreallyrpigs" the day AFTER the accident Wigglesworth found out what happened the night before at school from his girlfriend. They knew the 17 year old that was killed. He then told his girlfriend and some friends what happened the night before. This can be easily verified unless you think the police have those teens in their back pocket too. And do you think a friend of the 17 year old Becker would then conspire with the police and say he was the speeder? Now if there wasn't a speeder then why was he riding the brakes? What was his destination? It wasn't Kirks. He would have turned right at that intersection. I myself thought there wasn't a speeder until the trial started. I do believe Wigglesworth is the speeder. I just don't believe all of his story. You may not like the police. I have my doubts at times. But you at least have to be objective in this case. It's a court of law, not a lynch mob.

• gonefishin (0) posts 1:14 pm

  I want to state that my heart goes out to ALL of the families involved. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. This is a solid father of a young girl himself, that will be haunted by the results this accident for the rest of his life. Nothing these courts say or do is bringing those girls back. The one things that isn't very popular in these types of situations is to point out a mistake the victim made that also could have lead to this horrible conclusion. A crucial mistake made by the girls (or at least one of them) was not having their seatbelt on. I believe it was a horrible head to head collision, because one girl didn't have her seatbelt on, that was the actual cause of death. Like I said were many mistakes made that contributed to this horrible accident, but I really don't see the need to ruin any more lives.

• copsreallyrpigs (125) posts 1:13 pm

  Everyone keeps saying he was chasing a speeder. The speeder story was concocted by Higbee 3 WEEKS AFTER THE CRASH! There's no video or dispatch log to back up this BS story. The speeder was allowed to testify without any personal risk whatsoever which makes me wonder what he gained! Was it money? Was it a promise of dropped charges in an unrelated case? Was it just to get in the newspapers and on TV for a few minutes? Maybe he was just mentally ill. There are many documented cases of people who have "confessed" to things they didn't do for those reasons and many others. It remains just a convenient excuse to get everyone away from the real issue which is the fact that Higbee recklessly disregarded a stop sign and killed 2 people. Why he did it is anyones guess. There was ample warning of the impending stop sign and the sign itself was viewable within the legally required distance. The speeder, even if it is true, still gives him no legal right to disregard the stop sign in any manner, much less the reckless way he did. Whether he "intended" to kill or not has no bearing whatsoever. He's on trial for THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HE DID, not what HE INTENDED TO DO! Not everyone who goes to prison goes there for what they intended to do. If you follow other cases to try to figure out what qualifies someone for prison you'd see that people kill others everyday for a variety of reasons, many of which didn't involve the intent to kill anyone. They still go to prison because somebody died because someone did something which had a likely outcome of someone else getting killed. Approaching a stop sign at over 79MPH and then crashing at 65MPH resulting in 2 people dying certainly seems to qualify Higbee for prison irregardless of any speeder. The same law that Higbee enforces also requires him to yield or stop if neccesaary to avoid a collision in pursuit of violators including the closing the gap c r a p we keep hearing about. Closing the gap still doesn't put him above the law as his prosecution obviously points out. He disregarded that law and people died because of it. That's the bottom line no matter what excuse anyone comes up with. My advise to Higbee would be: Admit what you did and Be a man. Put away your arrogance and stop making the family of your victims suffer any further. Haven't you made them suffer enough? Show remorse for your actions like you tell everyone else to do. Pay for your crime like you force others to do.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 12:50 pm

  I think the black box takes out any theory he was going for food or just speeding to be speeding. I would like to know based on the box and Wigglesworth statement how close these cars got to one another when Higbee decided to go after him. His word and Higbees speed is a 2-1 closure rate. When Higbee was 350 feet from the intersection does anyone know if the Beckers vehicle would have been visible? I would take a guess that the Beckers were about 250 feet from the intersection. Riding with his foot on the brake tells me he is using some caution. I would say the box helps Higbee to some extent. I think Subin and his stopping at Wayside Village theory is hurting him. Everyone knows that Higbee entered the intersection at a high rate of speed which could not be attained from a standing stop at the Wayside Village entrance. These Juors know a BS story when they hear one.

• abc123 (19) posts 11:40 am

  T Dog, you are chasing your tail. The reason shouldn't matter? He was chasing a speeder as he allowed/suppose to do. He was speeding as he is allowed/suppose to do. He ran a stop sign, he is NOT allowed to do. Why did he run the sign?? Take your pick, tunnel vision, he did it PURPOSELY, poor sign placement (they can ignore it in court, but not here. There are many documented crashes at this intersection and the sign has been changed from 30" to 36" to 48" and a blinking light was added?) Why did they change anything??............The intent, conscious decision to not stop IS THE WHOLE CASE. People run stop signs and kill other people or themselves regularly. No one screams or rattles their sword for those victims (the victim's families do) BUT, it is explained to them how these crashes are handled. Everyone please keep this link saved so I can send the up coming fatal stories to you and you can rattle your swords for THOSE victims.................ONE LAST THOUGHT, who's on trial, Tpr. Higbee or the NJSP/Woodbine Barracks?? I won't even respond to those comments. It's mob mentality to convict a person for the perceived, real or not behavior of the whole group. To those people who've witnessed the driving of the SP I have question. What did YOU DO ABOUT IT! Nothing I suppose, except complain here.

• My_opinion (149) posts 11:29 am

  abc123: Glad to see you're back. I didn't see your post until after I sent mine. I think that issue is mute anyway at this point. I think we are in agreement on everything else but that one issue. They can't accuse me of making my comments because I'm a cop. I think they'd be very surprised to know just how I fit into this equation.

• T-Dogg (0) posts 10:59 am

  ABC123, 'intent' should not be allowed by prosecution OR defense..it is irrelevent but does touch on human emotion, which is why one in my opinion would try to bring it up. The idea though that somone who runs a sign 'accidentally' should be let go with only a ticket is shakey. There is a reason collisions are called 'Accidents.' Noone purposely disregards a stop sign when they see it. The question here as I see it is why didn't he see it. In my view, he either was he not looking at the road, or did he saw it and just not care, or he blew off state trooper standard procedures in order to go through this sign while speeding. ALL of them to me are reckless. To me, NOT being reckless would be if his breaks failed, he was swerving to avoid an animal in road...things of that nature.

• ConcernedCitizen (95) posts 10:50 am

  "equaltime" don't blame the Prosecutor for this trial. Had Higbee told the truth there might not be a trial. He's the one who said he stopped and looked both ways. I guess you think this should have been swept under the rug and given more reason for people to lose trust in the police.

• T-Dogg (0) posts 10:42 am

  URALLEXPERTS, you are proving EXACTLY my point. the text statment i made was just an example. Very well COULD have been playing pacman...the point of it is that it is no different then YOUR 'made up speculation pie in the sky self serving statement': the experts testimony shows "it's consistant with someone realizing they are about to run a stop sign..." I agree my statement is specualtion. The problem is you write of YOUR statement as though it is a fact/proof in the case, and it is not. It is simply YOUR speculation. Therefore you can't use it to justify your original point that this creates reasonable doubt.GAME.SET.MATCH. And FYI, you don't have to prove 'state of mind' for reckless. You DO have to prove he disregarded risk and that the disregard of the risk was a gross deviation from the way a reasonable person would have conducted himself/herself) in the situation." The state police recreation expert who said he SHOULD have honored the stop sign proves this based on the very statute that the police are required to follow, whether in a pursuit or not.

• My_opinion (149) posts 10:40 am

  VIA LEGAL DICTIONARY.....VEHICULAR HOMICIDE: homicide caused by the illegal operation of a motor vehicle. RECKLESS DRIVING: gross negligence in driving: a conscious and intentional driving that the driver knows, or should know, creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others even though there is no intent to harm; driving in deliberate disregard for the safety of others. END. All law is subject to interpretation. People interpret things differently. Obviously that is confirmed in all these postings. Let's pick it apart. He wasn't operating the vehicle illegally - he had the legal right to speed. The driving he was doing is a promoted teaching tool in the apprehension of violators (however minor or major they are - he has no way to know this until after the call is cleared). Conscious and intentional driving that creates harm? The preceeding driving part was intentional. That has been established. But it was not illegal. The stop sign violation is the only questionable intentional act. Can any one actually make a claim that he intentionally blew the stop sign if the recorder shows that he braked at the last second? You can't. You can say he braked because he saw the stop sign at the last second. You can say he braked because he caught the van in his peripheral view at the last second. It's QUESTIONABLE and that very fact means it is not a finding of beyond a reasonable doubt which is required. The charge was appropriate. The disposition should be appropriate as well and that is that the jury should come back and say "not guilty" because it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe Mr. Taylor's version is accurate to the best of his ability. I believe there are things that occurred after the accident that are not entirely honest. But you have to have scientific and physical proof that there is no question that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see that here.

• abc123 (19) posts 10:26 am

  T-Dogg, the Prosecution has to prove he made a conscious decision to not stop at the stop sign. That is going to be tough to do. It's interesting how the Prosecution wanted to have this expert testify as to Higbee's "intent" to not stop. Anyone following the case SHOULD remeber this. The Judge did not allow this. If intent isn't important, then why would they be trying so hard?? .............I am open minded enough to agree that "IF" Higbee or ANY police officer intentionally drove through a stop sign at 65 mph, I would want them prosecuted. Can any naysayers agree that if he did "accidentally" run the stop sign he should NOT be found guilty??

• yogiman (1) posts 10:25 am

  acman 21........GET A LIFE.........First of all, you are not a lawyer, and second your speech is highly repetitive. This is negligence plan and simple......oh let me guess...you are a cop?? or a cop is in your family???? This scumbag murdered two innocent people by his gross negligence. That brilliant acman is NOT an accident.

• abc123 (19) posts 10:18 am

  MY OPINION,,,,,,,I was waiting for more information regarding the cases you indicated you have knowledge of. I have followed crash investigation for the last five years and know a dozen more people who have followed it for 15 to 20 years. None can recall ever reading about a CRIMINAL case for a civilain, in New Jersey, not stopping at a stop sign and being charged w/homicide.

• KaraJB (0) posts 10:07 am

  T-DOGG - thanks for clearing that up for ACMAN - for I think his brain is a little fogged up. ACMAN - you need to have a little more experience with the state police before you go to bat for them. THEY drive reckless OFTEN. Higbee immediately lied about the incident before he knew there was a data recorder on his vehicle. That is FACT. You expect at the VERY least that a man in uniform should be a man of integrity. I invite you to take a good look at some of their responses and actions... they think & act like they are above the law - pompous and arrogant. It starts from the bottom and goes right up the chain. Personally, I'm glad to see this case shed a little light on the gross abuse of power & culture nurtured in that barrack. It's just sad that a family had to pay the price of their two beautiful children for it to be seen for what it truly is.

• urallexperts (0) posts 9:39 am

  T-Dog,,,so facts are less convincing that your made up speculation pie in the sky self serving :"looking up from a text" . Why not make it better and say he was playing pac man on the phone,,,,it has more flavor and just as much relevance. You need to take all the facts in,,not just the ones you can spin...... Better yet to prove reckless you would have to prove his state of mind.......what was he doing,,,why was he doing it,,,,, Reckless has a very high standard of proof.....whereas careless does not.

• equaltime (14) posts 9:07 am

  What Trudi failed to tell everyone was that Rick Ruth and this case BLEW UP yesterday. The expert impeached himself from the January Frye hearing. He falsified his "expert" court appearances and had to admit he forgot to mention a case that the defendant was not indicted even though he testified. He acknowledged he generalized the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Model as one car. He did tests on one FCVPI and presented it on direct testimoney that there is only one model. WRONG, there are two with very different gear ratios which relates directly to speed. He could not ditinguish the two and acknowledged there is no quality control which would assure the correct data is recorded. He compared speed to a GPS device. Sometimes there were two people in the car sometimes three. He didn't actually do the driving nor did he use an instrument designed for this purpose called a accelerometer. There is no science to back up his uncontrolled tests. He has submitted his results for expert peer review and never received it. He acknowledged the EDR does not record data very well when braking, especially hard braking. He also authored Fords "disclaimer" that says this data is not for crash purposes, but rather Ford systems analysis. He "paced" distances rather than measured them. He did not review his case notes. He admitted neither he or Ford has ever crash tested the EDR devices to determine if crash data is relaible. He acknowledges error rates in speed, time and his own factor of 5% - 10% on top of those other factors. His own charts that the Press of AC publsihed show missing time, distances and error rates. At least five times he faulted his memory, referring to it as "bad memory". How about his qualifications? BS in electrical engineering with a MS in business management? He is here as an expert in physics. Any physics student would tell you you never quantify a value by rounding up. You round down or deal with whole values. His charts used a ficticous speed never achieved by rounding up and words that did not apply such as "pursuit". He acknowledge for the final six seconds Trooper Higbee was not accelerating into the intersection, but rather braking. He even labled the last section of his chart "avoidance". And then there was the email he sent to the Prosecutor "offering" his services. Mr. Ruth was aware of this case as he retired and it appeared as he set himself up for monetary gain. There is a reason he was available to testify, nobody would ever use this guy as an expert. He has never done real world crash reconstruction. He could only testify a handfull of tests skids that produced unreliable error filled EDR data. Tests that were conducted out of the country where he and Ford reside. This is the "expert" and evidence the Prosecutor relied upon to convince a Grand Jury that this case crossed from a horrible accident to vehiclular homicide.

• ditsydaisy (2) posts 8:48 am

  right..............?????????

• T-Dogg (0) posts 8:47 am

  ACMAN, with all due respect to your attempt to lay it out clearly for everyone, you are mis-stating the biggest fact to prove your point. You keep talking "intent" as though that is the smoking gun to innocence. Intent is irrelevent. ---------------------------------------------- STRAIGHT FROM NJ JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT: In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the defendant was driving a vehicle [or vessel];2 2. That the defendant caused the death of (name victim); and 3. That the defendant caused such death by driving the vehicle [or vessel] recklessly. --------------------------------------------- You are replacing "recklessly" with "intent", and they are completly different. URALLEXPERTS, while the experts testimony is consistant with Higbee suddenly realizing he was running a stop sign and breaking, it is ALSO consistant with somone looking up at the last second from reading atext on their phone. You argument is unconvincing at best.

• urallexperts (0) posts 8:29 am

  See Above........

• ditsydaisy (2) posts 8:18 am

  urallexperts.......whom was he "stopping" ???

• urallexperts (0) posts 7:54 am

  ditsy.......If your going to post a comment, thats fine, but to avoid looking foolish one might actually learn about the issue before opening his or her mouth,,,,,,,, open mouth insert foot???? or keyboard.......

• urallexperts (0) posts 7:49 am

  If your read and understand the experts testimony, its consistent with someone realizing they are about to run a stop sign and breaking had after seeing the stop sign. We know that sign was obstructed, and almost half the size of what is is today. Reasonable doubt? Considering that he was tracking a speeder it easy to see how this tragic accident happened. Higbee was not speeding until he turned around to stop the car he clocked on his radar. He made his radar clock traveling at a lower speed because the radar shuts off and will not clock a violator when the trooper's vehicle is traveling at high speed. So he only reached those high speeds while attempting to make a stop, he was not running those speeds without a justifiable reason.

• ditsydaisy (2) posts 7:33 am

  "He is supposed to conduct car stops, that was his reason." Whom was he stopping ???

• My_opinion (149) posts 7:22 am

  Ditsydaisy: Boy that screen name is all telling. Acman: I think very accurate except two points. The mother angle is incorrect. She didn't bring the charges and there are a lot of people attacking her and the girls all of a sudden which is very sad and inaccurrate and will only intensify the hate toward police in general. The other, your information about no other cases in NJ is also incorrect. There are no others against police in NEW JERSEY but there are in other states. These charges have been brought against regular people without DWI or drugs. I have posted about this before and I believe an officer did check it but he didn't post anymore after that. lectrode: the family has nothing to do with the charges that Higbee is facing. In fact, I would venture to guess that at least some of them probably think Higbee is being hung out to dry by his own.

• urallexperts (0) posts 7:21 am

  Hey ditsy,,your name hit the nail right on the head. He is supposed to conduct car stops, that was his reason. Your donut comment just provides a window to your mentality. lectrode,,,,, contributing factors are hardly semantics,,,,,all the facts on both sides of this case should be heard so the jury can come to a fair verdict,,,,thats the reason for a trial.

• ditsydaisy (2) posts 6:49 am

  That's all fine and dandy, acman21, if only he had a REASON to be "speeding" to begin with !! That damn donut could have waited !!!

• lectrode (1) posts 6:36 am

  This public servant was so grossly irresponsible his pathetic barrister is reduced to arguing symantics on his behalf. This is a prime example of abuse of position. He would do much better to simply admit that he was wrong and beg the forgiveness of the family he ruined. This position he is taking makes me want to vomit.

• acman21 (0) posts 2:05 am

  I hope everyone is paying attention to what is happening here. The case that the State is fighting is, was Trooper Higbee reckless and INTENTIONALLY trying to go through the stop sign during the incident. The latest article a few days earlier reporting on the Expert from the State Police, when asked by the prosecutor, said that he was not excused by law to blow the stop sign actually is not the smoking gun that everyone wants. People that fact is not in question. The issue is simple. Did he see that stop sign and make the decision to blow it??? Please continue to read. The fact that the recorder shows he was "braking hard" that was consistent with trying to avoid the accident, is proof of proof that this was an accident with no intent. That there was no intent and if people read the the law that is actually under consideration for this case, that's the issue. Second, the constant remarks that any other person would be arrested and in jail again is wrong. People, this trooper is the ONLY and I mean ONLY person to have been indicted for an accident of this kind in the entire state of NJ for over a Five year period. So other people would have and have had lost licenses, been sued, but to face jail time for HOMICIDE, the facts are not consistent. Third, the constant confusion about why he didn't have lights and siren on, again, people read the law. More accidents have happened because if a police officer in chase puts on lights and siren before they are close enough to the car that is being pursued. So though everyone asks this, the fact is that's the law and standard operating procedure. Fourth, relating to the States EXPERT that is a trooper, in his statement that the jury wasn't allowed to hear, his remarks and analysis of the stop sign and visibility was "the stop sign was farther from than "normal" ..."...meaning that an EXPERT, the States Expert certified that the sign was likely not easy to see, was excluded from the jury to hear, b/c the judge said that the phrase "normal" would confuse the jury. But this guy is an expert. That's the same as a doctor in a medical case certifying that something isn't "normal"...I just don't see what is happening here but a railroad job. If any of you have been able to watch the daily proceedings on TruTV each of this trial, even the Prosecutors that are doing analysis when asked, reply "I really don't know why this case is on trial"... Something very creepy is happening here relating to outsiders influencing the poor mother, the prosecutors that may be trying to protect the county from further liability by keeping the fact that the stop sign was an issue. I really hope justice by the law they are trying to convict is made and this poor trooper isn't a scapegoat for a lot of other things trying to be swept under the rug.

PressofAtlanticCity.com offers everyone the opportunity to comment on published stories. However, it is impractical for editors to screen all comments.
If you believe a comment is offensive, please click on the abuse-reporting link and your objection will be considered by an editor. We encourage participants to use their real names, but inoffensive screen names are acceptable. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Please post responsibly. Do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy.
Be polite. Don’t hate. Users who don’t play by the rules may be blocked from participating.

View our full terms of service and privacy agreement

Click here to report a comment as abusive.

You must login to post a new comment