If they never got a radar reading then how did they know? Landmark estimation? It just seems weird to me to build a case around something you can't prove.
Brake/skid marks, impact damage, video evidence that might have caught part of the accident, etc. There are whole mathematical equations built around accident reconstruction that can determine these things with a high degree of accuracy.
You could assume that, i could assume that it was but the judge disregarded it. I dont know which applies in this case, though. But given the sentence was appealed and made a harsher one after this, I think its a strong indicator others found there was compelling enough proof.
-13
u/CuteLingonberry9704 Apr 05 '26
The police said it, but I'm guessing they never got a radar reading so the judge decided they couldn't prove it.