California road rage trial to start this week. (Page 3)

Sharkboy - 2009-10-29 3:38 PM You only know what velonews.com has reported. The cross may have been brief, but I bet she did a lot more than was actually reported. Two things from the report jumped out at me as HUGE credibility busters for Thompson: 1. When he said "I didn't slam on the brakes"; yet on the tape, he's clearly telling the 911 operator that he DID slam on the brakes. His statement to 911 was MUCH more credible because he probably was (a) in the heat of the adrenaline rush from the occurrence; and (b) less apt to be thinking about litigation, whereas at trial, after the fact, liability is all he's had to think about. 2. When the DA got him to admit the accuracy of most of the stuff in the the police officer's report. Of course, he didn't admit the damaging stuff, but it begs the question: What does the officer have to gain by making up things? If everything else is accurate, it's more likely than not the statements about "teaching them a lesson" was actually said too. It's just that Thompson can't admit that on the stand or he's lost for sure. I believe ChrisM said this on a similar ST thread: he admitted what he can't deny and denied what he can't admit. In my view, based solely on what I've read in Velonews and on chat forums, Thompson's story doesn't have much, if any credibility. However, I wouldn't be surprised (sad and distressed, yes, but not surprised) if the jury either acquits him or hangs because of anti-cycling sentiments. I hope I'm wrong.