By Jessica Roberts
Special to the Daily Press

DOWNTOWN LA — Jurors heard expert testimony Thursday that the movements of George Russell Weller’s car would have required driver control, and that there was no evidence of “hard braking” as the 86-year-old drove through the Farmer’s Market three years ago, killing 10 people and severely injuring dozens more.

The lead investigator for the California Highway Patrol testified that Weller must have moved his steering wheel so he was able to drive from one side of the street to the other, supporting the prosecution’s claim that the elderly driver had control of the car.

Lead CHP Multidisciplinary Accident Investigative Team (MAIT) investigator Richard Wong said the “crown” or hump in the middle of Arizona Avenue would have prevented the car from moving across the middle of the street without any driver influence.

Wong testified for several hours about the conclusions the team’s investigation came to regarding the crash, which occurred on July 16, 2003. Wong called it “the worst scene I had seen in 17 years with the CHP.”

Weller is charged with 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, a charge his defense lawyers are trying to fight by showing he lost control of his car.

Deputy District Attorney Ann Ambrose asked Wong about each car movement indicated in MAIT diagrams and witness depictions, in which the vehicle crossed from the north to south side of the street and back. Wong answered each time that active steering input from the driver would be required to force the car to go from side to side.

Each segment of the car’s trip from the intersection of Fourth to Second streets along Arizona Avenue was carefully depicted on the diagram, with 10 “areas of impact” marked. Between impacts four and five, for example, Wong testified that the car’s behavior shows evidence of driver input. At the fourth impact point, five pedestrians were struck, and at the fifth, a 3-year-old girl was killed.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Mark Borenstein asked Wong about other segments of the car’s journey — when it did travel in a straight line on one side of the road. Wong agreed that those portions indicated “little or no driver input.” He also agreed that other factors may have affected the movement of the car, although he insisted that impact with structures is likely to cause a car to change direction, while impact with people does not. Weller’s vehicle never hit other parked cars or buildings.

Of the 10 separate impacts documented by accident investigators, all them involved pedestrians. But it wasn’t until the fourth area of impact that Weller began hitting tables, booths and canopies.

Although accident investigators were unable to determine the speed of the car due to its changing acceleration and other objects interfering in the path of flying debris and bodies, Wong was able to draw some conclusions about Weller’s speed based on the damage to his vehicle.

He said Weller was traveling between five and 10 miles per hour when his Buick collided with a Mercedes Benz before driving through the market at the intersection of Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue.

Wong also said that the damage to the car’s windshield indicated that it must have been traveling at least 25 miles per hour when victims’ heads made contact with the glass. When bodies are thrown over a car’s roof, Wong said, controlled tests have shown vehicles must be traveling at an average speed of 37 miles per hour.

Bodies were thrown as far as 60 feet from where they had been standing when the car hit them, Wong testified.

Wong said there was no evidence — such as skid marks — that Weller ever applied the brakes hard, and that he came to a stop only because of the drag from a shopping cart, trash can and a woman he had run over.

Ambrose asked Wong whether he had looked through the windshield of Weller’s car when he arrived at the scene. Defense attorneys had questioned previous witnesses of the crash about the condition of the windshield, possibly trying to show Weller was unable to see where he was going.

“Could you see people through the windshield?” Ambrose asked Wong.

“Yes,” he replied.

Wong also testified that Weller did not appear to have been injured by the deployment of the airbag. The effect of the airbag on Weller’s control of the car is a key point for the defense. Wong said an airbag only remains filled for a “fraction of a second.”

Another important defense claim is that Weller suffered a moment of “pedal error,” a claim Ambrose tried to weaken by asking Wong about the positions of the pedals. The brake pedal is about two inches higher than the accelerator and two inches apart, Wong said.

“Mainly so you won’t accidentally step on the wrong one,” he testified.

Testimony resumes today in what is expected to be a six-week trial against the longtime Santa Monica resident, who is now 89 years old and has been given permission to not attend the court proceedings due to his declining health.