Letter: 1980 case relevant to current Dillard case

Posted
To the editor:

In its Dec. 26 story "New bail for suspect in hit-and-run death of motorcyclist, " The Eagle reports that the defendant, Brian Dillard, "was allegedly driving a stolen pickup truck" when he collided with the motorcycle. "Police said Dillard had stolen the truck and used it to drive to Pittsfield to buy drugs."

Further, "Dillard has pleaded not guilty to charges of negligent motor vehicle homicide; leaving the scene of a personal injury accident resulting in death; leaving the scene of a property damage accident; negligent operation of a motor vehicle; use of motor vehicle without authority; and operating a motor vehicle without authority; and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license."

My understanding can be summarized this way: By ignoring the as yet uncited accounts of Dillard allegedly breaking and entering the North Adams auto shop in question (a crime) and then stealing money from the business owner (a crime), we are left with the account of Dillard driving the stolen truck to Pittsfield to buy drugs and, as a direct consequence, causing the untimely death of motorcyclist Alan Keefe. I don't understand why Assistant District Attorney Robert Kinzer — and by extension Judge Daniel Ford — are not holding Dillard accountable to the same stringent laws and legal standards that were applied to Matthew Chenail and Timothy Moran in the untimely death of Adams resident William Wronski in 1980?

Recall that their crime was taking $70 from the wallet of William Wronski after putting the inebriated and unconscious Wronski back into the cab of his pickup. Wronski subsequently died of asphyxiation, and under the applicable felony murder law, Chenail and Moran were convicted and sentenced to Walpole for 20-years-to-life because Wronski's untimely death was directly linked to and preceded by Chenail's and Moran's crime of theft.

I suggest that, in both the public interest and that of justice being served, The Eagle ought to do further reporting on this 1980 incident, its applicable law, and the relevance of both, to the Brian Dillard matter, thus providing answers to the who, what, when, how, and whys of Massachusetts v. Brian Dillard.

Algird Sunskis,

Lanesborough



TALK TO US

If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.



Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions