One Dead, Two Stories
This is regarding the recent death of a 3 year old child who died in a crash downtown on I74. Initial reports stated that the driver (mother) was arrested on a charge of DUI, but some comments on the PJStar’s website beg to differ:
I heard that this woman just picked up her van from the shop and that the rear tire came off and that led to the accident. Does anyone know if this is true?
Posted by Kristina on 07/23 at 02:37 PM
I just talked to the family and for everyone who is so quick to pass on judgement are all wrong. The mother’s test results all came back negative for alcohol and the mother in NOT being charged with anything at this time. The ACCIDENT is still under investigation. She wasn’t under the influence. A witness to the accident reported that he saw the front tire come off of the van and it rolled onder the vehicle and caused her to lose control of the van. Quinton and the mother were both restrained, the child had bruise marks on his chest from the restraints. They hit a concrete wall. So quuit passing on judgement when you don’t know the facts. What if this was your family. Possibly your mother, sister aunt, etc.
Posted by Stella on 07/23 at 03:27 PM
just stating with some of the comments—no-one here knows what happen – but i can say she was not drunk or had been drinking – and the child was secure – before people jump to conclusions – need to know the facts first – this is a hard time for her and the family – be respectful and thoughtful before you judge people….
Posted by family of 4 on 07/23 at 06:43 PM
Before the comment by “Stella” appeared, the usual Journal Star commenters seemingly wanted to burn Amy Reed (the driver) at the stake. They’ve toned down their rhetoric since, but there has been no correction made to the article on the Journal Star’s web site.
At this point I have no idea if Amy Reed was under the influence or not, nor do I know if her front tire came off and caused her to lose control of her van.
What I do know is that there is a dead child who was only three years old, and this tragedy is horribly sad beyond comprehension. The only question, in my mind, is how much sorrow can I feel for this mother?
Update: As reported in today’s Journal Star, although still waiting for toxicology reports, the State’s Attorney’s office is considering a charge of Aggravated DUI.
I am wondering if the family and friends who are commenting on the Journal Star’s website, in struggling to understand this tragedy, have latched on to their own version of the truth. I hope they’re right, but how many times have you heard parents rise up to the defense of villains and murderers… “He’s such a sweet kid, I just know he couldn’t have done, it.”
July 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
WEEK is also reporting the mother is facing DUI charges this morning.
Aside from the sadness of this accident, it is SO irresponsible for the State’s Attorney’s office to consider filing DUI charges BEFORE getting the toxicology results. How about waiting for some evidence? How about letting a mother grieve before ruining her life even further, even if she was the cause of the child’s death? What ever happened the presumption of innocence?
July 24th, 2007 at 9:34 am
My friend is the mothers former neighbor. She said that is highly likely she was either drunk or under the influence of drugs. She spent her days drunk or strung out. She was no stranger to the police either. They were called to her residence for fights with neighbors and her boyfriend frequently. I have no idea if she was drunk or not. All I know is that if she was she will have to live with her actions for the rest of her life if she was drunk.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
[...] PeoriaIllinoisan is all over the case of the woman who is accused of driving under the influence and getting into a traffic accident that took the life of her small child, who was apparently unrestrained in the vehicle. [...]
July 24th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The thing is, blood alcohol levels can be determined in a matter of minutes in a hospital lab. They can also do most drug screen pretty fast, too. And from my understanding, the mom was taken to the hospital. If there was any suspicion of alcohol at all, the cops would have asked that the BA be drawn. They’d have gotten the results right then.
If she is, indeed, being charged with DUI…and I can’t possibly think of a reason the PJS would just pull that outa nowhere…there’s probably a pretty good reason for it.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The Journal Star is now reporting that the labs said she was on drugs not alcohol. It also said that all four tires were intact and one the vehicle.
http://www.pjstar.com/php/index.php?/news/peoria_autopsy_shows_toddler_died_of_head_neck_injuries/
July 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
To clarify, what I was saying is, if they have the evidence, why just “consider” charges. I have heard no evidence of the results of any testing – just speculation. If she was drunk, charge her. If she was high, charge her.
What the State Attorney’s Office is doing is tainting the jury pool. Instead of coming right out and saying they are going to charge her because they have the evidence she is guilty of a crime, they are hinting she is guilty of the crime so everyone anywhere near Peoria County will take it as the gods-truth that she was drunk. (The government wouldn’t lie, would it?) They are flooding the media with pure speculation – no actual evidence has been given. They want the public flogging to start before they have to go through the technical act of charging her – it makes the charging that much easier.
What the State Attorney’s Office is doing is looking for an easy stat. No defendant is going to choose to go to trial after the public bashing has already taken place and the public (who is the jury pool) decides she is guilty. Therefore, it is more likely the defendant will plead guilty. Easy case, easy stat for their office. They could even put the newbie prosecutor on the case.
The Journal Star is reporting it because the State Attorney’s Office told them to print it. I’m not saying the report is wrong. I am saying it is irresponsible.