Biden's Wife was NOT killed by a drunk driver.

[DawnCt1]

The facts are in dispute. None of us were there. The woman and her child died in the accident. I think this post is disgraceful.

The facts are not in dispute. No alcohol was involved in the accident.

 

[DawnCt1]

How can you accuse her of not paying attention and changing the radio station? Once again the facts are in dispute but have nothing to do with this campaign. I am still amazed that you guys think that it is OK to attack a dead woman.

Even if she was not paying attention and changing the radio station, that does not make her a bad person. For one reason or other, hundreds of people have a lapse of attention every day. They are not bad people. They are inattentive for a moment. Sometimes that moment is fateful. It makes what happened an accident.

 

[yeartolate]

~ If Senator Biden said that his wife and daughter were killed by someone who "drank his lunch", and the man was not drunk, then it is a slanderous or libelous statement because most people interpret the phrase "drank his lunch" to mean he was drunk. So let's not argue semantics. We all iunderstand the implication.

That is alot of ifs.

I do not know if you have these campaigns in your neck of the woods....."Buzzed driving is drunk driving" So I am curious if he was buzzed. In 1972 - drunk driving was not the big bad ugly it is today. It is a hot button issue now, but back then it was not taken as seriously - so the reporting on it may not be as thourough as it would today.

I am also curious what the accident investigation said, who was assigned fault. Does the formal investigation with autopsies still exist?

It is altogether possible that he was lead to believe this by the investigators. Was this ever contested in 1972?I do not know, I am asking.


My point is, we probably won't know what happened 36 years ago. We will probably never be able to verify this accurately.

 

[GeorgeG]

It seems to be a matter of record that alcohol did not play a part in that tragic accident, but it also seems to be a matter of record that Biden has claimed it was, even recently. Now, we could take that as just another politician twisting the truth or we can take it as a vice presidential candidate slandering an innocent man post mortem. We could then come to a proper conclusion of who is stooping low.

Politics... ugh!

 

[Planogirl]

God forbid we actually decide this election on issues. I could give a big crap about whether the guy who killed Biden's wife and daughter was drunk. I could also care less about Palin's brood.

I do care about healthcare, the economy, the Taliban and moving this country forward out of the rut we are in and will cast my vote accordingly.

I agree with you but I've just about given up. It's easier to score political points off of dead family members, pregnant teens and other assorted relatives. Why look at what could affect us all?

Biden should not have been saying this if it's untrue and he knew that it was untrue. Is it truthfully relevant to any of us though?

 

[yeartolate]

Do we have evidence that Biden knew differently? A despondent husband and father may have taken something an officer said and he might not have questioned it.

Do we actually have the investigators report and autopsy results?People say it is not in question, but where are the formal accident reports and autopsy. And proff Biden knew the outcome.


These are two things I would certainly like to know.

 

[asta]

I don't think any of the posters here were directly involved in this accident. Anything that is being posted is second-hand knowledge. I don't think that anyone here has a copy of the accident report or even the court record if there was one. Quoting a recollection is not the same. This thread does not address any important issues of this election. This was a tragic accident and it is still shameful to have brought this up.

 

[Keli]

Biden really shouldn't smear a dead man's reputation on a national stage. It truly isn't fair to that man's family.
There is no evidence of alcohol being a factor in the accident and whether Biden 'believes' it was a factor or not, as one previous poster suggested, is irrelevant. He cannot prove what he is saying and he is slandering a man that may not deserve it.
Truth is, my heart goes out to Biden for his loss. What a terrible, terrible tragedy. But he should not be slandering that man's name in public. Tell his friends and family what he believes in private, but in the public arena you need proof to make statements like that.

 

[asta]

Read the article; Biden is making it a POLITICAL STORY.

Here is another; http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=2048

You brought this up. You started this thread. You are responsible for this conversation. You keep referring us to the same statements. These are just individual recollections and you do not know the motive of the individuals quoted. Have you seen the accident report? Please respect the tragedy of all involved.

 

[yeartolate]

So, did the truck driver have a blood alcohol level at the scene?

If so, could you post the results?

Aso, it seems as if he did receive a hone call thqat insinuated there was alcohol involved. Do we have as much proof of that phone call as we have of the blood alcohol level?

 

[DawnCt1]

I don't think any of the posters here were directly involved in this accident. Anything that is being posted is second-hand knowledge. I don't think that anyone here has a copy of the accident report or even the court record if there was one. Quoting a recollection is not the same. This thread does not address any important issues of this election. This was a tragic accident and it is still shameful to have brought this up.

I would assume that as the victims' husband, Biden made himself well aware of all of the particulars of the situation. It is a fact that no charges were filed. It is a fact that the truck driver was not convicted of DUI in relation to the accident. He can have a "recollection" but if it is contrary to the facts, then it is slander.

 

[DawnCt1]

So, did the truck driver have a blood alcohol level at the scene?

If so, could you post the results?

Aso, it seems as if he did receive a hone call thqat insinuated there was alcohol involved. Do we have as much proof of that phone call as we have of the blood alcohol level?

I have no idea what the blood alcohol level was because it is irrelevant. He was not charged. He was not convicted. He is not guilty, so he shouldn't be slandered.

 

[DISUNC]

Do we have evidence that Biden knew differently? A despondent husband and father may have taken something an officer said and he might not have questioned it.

Do we actually have the investigators report and autopsy results?People say it is not in question, but where are the formal accident reports and autopsy. And proff Biden knew the outcome.


These are two things I would certainly like to know.

All these questions are answered in the article. Except the autopsy. The man did not die until 1999.

 

[asta]

I would assume that as the victims' husband, Biden made himself well aware of all of the particulars of the situation. It is a fact that no charges were filed. It is a fact that the truck driver was not convicted of DUI in relation to the accident. He can have a "recollection" but if it is contrary to the facts, then it is slander.

If it was slander, then why has he not been charged. You are once again using assumptions to make what you think is a point in the face of personal tragedy. Still doesn't look any less shameful.

 

[FinallyBoughtDVC]

I would assume that as the victims' husband, Biden made himself well aware of all of the particulars of the situation. It is a fact that no charges were filed. It is a fact that the truck driver was not convicted of DUI in relation to the accident. He can have a "recollection" but if it is contrary to the facts, then it is slander.

Geez louise - this was 1972 for crying out loud. I was eight years old and we didn't even wear seatbelts then! It was a different time and alcohol and driving were not looked at as they are now. Blood alcohol, DUI, breathalyzers - in 1972!?

This has got to be the stupidest thread I've opened yet on the Dis regarding this election. And, is someone seriously using Inside Edition as a news source? Now I've seen everything. LOL

Slander - please. This is assinine.

 

[asta]

All these questions are answered in the article. Except the autopsy. The man did not die until 1999.

You are referring to a newspaper article that could be biased. You do not the motive behind the reporter. The real question here is that no one has been able to produce the actual legal documents pertaining to this case and none of you were involved in this tragedy. This is a tragic situation and I don't think it should be used to smear Sen Biden and his late wife and child.

 

[Disney Doll]

~ If Senator Biden said that his wife and daughter were killed by someone who "drank his lunch", and the man was not drunk, then it is a slanderous or libelous statement because most people interpret the phrase "drank his lunch" to mean he was drunk. So let's not argue semantics. We all iunderstand the implication.

That is alot of ifs.

I do not know if you have these campaigns in your neck of the woods....."Buzzed driving is drunk driving" So I am curious if he was buzzed. In 1972 - drunk driving was not the big bad ugly it is today. It is a hot button issue now, but back then it was not taken as seriously - so the reporting on it may not be as thourough as it would today.

I am also curious what the accident investigation said, who was assigned fault. Does the formal investigation with autopsies still exist?

It is altogether possible that he was lead to believe this by the investigators. Was this ever contested in 1972?I do not know, I am asking.


My point is, we probably won't know what happened 36 years ago. We will probably never be able to verify this accurately.

You are correct...we won't ever be able to verify it accurately.

 

[Disney Doll]

You are referring to a newspaper article that could be biased. You do not the motive behind the reporter. The real question here is that no one has been able to produce the actual legal documents pertaining to this case and none of you were involved in this tragedy. This is a tragic situation and I don't think it should be used to smear Sen Biden and his late wife and child.

Nor should it be used to smear the other party involved in the accident.

The "non-smearing" rule really needs to apply to all involved.

 

[DawnCt1]

If it was slander, then why has he not been charged. You are once again using assumptions to make what you think is a point in the face of personal tragedy. Still doesn't look any less shameful.

Apparently you can say whatever you want about a dead person. There isn't a law against that. He is slandering a man who is not here to defend himself. I would say it is also a personal tragedy for the trucker's family.

 

[DawnCt1]

Geez louise - this was 1972 for crying out loud. I was eight years old and we didn't even wear seatbelts then! It was a different time and alcohol and driving were not looked at as they are now. Blood alcohol, DUI, breathalyzers - in 1972!?

This has got to be the stupidest thread I've opened yet on the Dis regarding this election. And, is someone seriously using Inside Edition as a news source? Now I've seen everything. LOL

Slander - please. This is assinine.

While the incident happened more than 30 years ago, Biden has been insinuating that the truck driver was drinking during this campaign. Those are Biden's accusations. If Biden said it over 30 years ago, it would be in the distant past and no one would have taken notice. He said it a couple of weeks ago, and its an insinuation that the driver was drunk.