> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Weller’s defense making its case - URL: https://www.smdp.com/wellers-defense-making-its-case/ - Published: 2006-09-27T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T21:26:23.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Crime, Downtown, #archive-import *Weller’s whereabouts are disputed* *By JESSICA ROBERTS Special to the Daily Press* DOWNTOWN LA — Three weeks into what’s expected to be a six-week trial, the prosecution on Tuesday rested its case against George Russell Weller, now 89, calling into question his whereabouts on the morning before he crashed through the Farmer’s Market three years ago, killing 10 people and injuring dozens more. David Eisenman testified that he saw a red car driving erratically on San Vicente Boulevard, near the intersection with Bundy Drive about 10 a.m. on July 16, 2003, about four hours before the incident for which Weller now faces 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Weller, who was 86 at the time of the crash, was again absent from the courtroom, having been granted special permission from the court due to declining health. Eisenman said he called the police that night after he saw a report about Weller’s accident on the evening news. “I recognized the car and driver as the one I saw on the road,” Eisenman told the jury. As Eisenman turned left into the far right lane on San Vicente Boulevard, he said he spotted a red sedan in the left lane. He testified the car changed lanes quickly, moving partially into the lane his car had entered, and braked and sped up abruptly a few times. Eisenman said the driver’s erratic behavior made him hesitant to merge left out of the bike lane his car was in and on to San Vicente Boulevard. “I felt that I needed to get away from his car and wanted to get in front of it,” he said, adding that he got a look at the driver.“I saw an elderly gentleman... white hair.” However, the witnesses’ belief that he saw Weller was called into question by the defense, which began its case shortly after the lunch break. Santa Monica Police Detective Virginia Obenchain, who interviewed Weller shortly after the accident at the Farmer’s Market, said Weller told police that he had gone to Farm’s Market on Montana Avenue and 21st Street in the morning — a small grocer located six blocks from Weller’s home — and did not mention anything about San Vicente Boulevard. Defense attorney Mark Borenstein asked Obenchain if Weller would have had to go in opposite directions to get to Farm’s Market versus the San Vicente Boulevard and Bundy Drive intersection. “Yes, taking the direct routes,” she said. California Highway Patrol Sgt. Donald Karol, who also is a supervisor of the Multi-disciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT), later testified that MAIT “couldn’t confirm that the man that Dr. Eisenman saw was Mr. Weller.” Obenchain did confirm one of the key points for the prosecution — she said she could see through the windshield of Weller’s Buick while sitting in the driver’s seat at the scene after he plowed through the open-aired market. “I was able to read a ‘restricted parking’ sign 40 to 45 feet away,” she said. The defense has maintained that the deployment of Weller’s airbag was a possible cause of the crash, decreasing visibility from within the car and possibly injuring the elderly driver amid the incident. On cross-examination, Borenstein questioned Obenchain about her state of mind and the surrounding conditions when she looked through the windshield to read the sign. Obenchain confirmed that she was calm, the engine was not running and that she never drove the Buick. Borenstein also asked about Weller’s physical condition during the police interview and pointed to several instances on the tape of the interview when Weller is seen rubbing his arms. On re-examination by Deputy District Attorney Ann Ambrose, Obenchain said the interviewers had asked Weller about his physical condition. “He said he was fine,” she said. “He said he did not have any bruises or cuts... He did-n’t talk about the airbag at all.” Karol, who testified for the defense, said the MAIT investigation concluded that the accident had been caused by Weller’s trying to press the brake, but instead pressing the accelerator. The defense’s main assertion is that Weller suffered a catastrophic case of “pedal error,” confusing the accelerator for the brake, following a collision with a Mercedes Benz at the corner of Arizona Avenue and Fourth Street. Karol, who re-interviewed several witnesses who had been at that corner, said the initiating event was “very important” and that this was not a “hit and run” accident, since Weller never stopped. “We did not find any evidence of braking on the part of Mr. Weller,” Karol said. Before resting, the prosecution had entered, and the defense agreed to accept as fact, several items from the mechanical analysis of Weller’s car, including that the examination found no leaks, restrictions or operational defects in the brakes or brake components, brake lights, emergency brake, throttle, accelerator, steering system or gear shift. Also, the examiner “did not detect anything that would cause the vehicle to accelerate without the driver pushing on the accelerator.” The prosecution also entered as fact that Weller had been examined at the UCLA Medical Center and was found to have “no medical condition that would have impaired his ability to drive.” The defense will continue its case today, with court in session only in the morning. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 27, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/092706.pdf?ref=smdp.com)