On Mon Dec-20-2010 22:44, mark lewis (1:3634/12) wrote to Roger Nelson:

 ml> i wasn't sure which "conclusion" you might have been referencing...
 ml> it could have been "discussion in this echo being out of place with
 ml> the picture" OR "my thinking that the car when in and hit the
 ml> truck"...

I think we are now talking about the same thing.  (-:

 ml> as for the conclusion, there's no damage to the back of the car
 ml> like there would be if the truck had run into it and climbed on top
 ml> of it... there is, however, damage to the rear of the truck like
 ml> there could be if the car had run thru the door and under the truck
 ml> ;)

It does make one wonder, but what's left of the garage door may have had
something to do with that.  I don't believe a car could force its way
beneath a truck unless it was going at a very high rate of speed, but the
truck would be a different matter altogether.

 RN> If that is true, then how did she get out of the car, among other
 RN> things? 

 ml> you don't think they might have squozed out the other side of the
 ml> truck where the car's windshield used to be?

Uh, no.

 ml> maybe they didn't make it out at all... we've all seen instances 
 ml> where photos are taken and then someone adds verbiage to it to fit 
 ml> a storyline ;)

And if "they" didn't make it out at all, then how do you explain
the letter from the wife?


Regards,

Roger 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+