Bachelor 19 - Chris Soules - Discussion - #3

North wrote:People Magazine: Chris Soules Did Not Have Alcohol or Drugs in His System Following Fatal Crash, Attorneys State

I'm glad to see this. This just proves to it was just a horrible accident.

mizzoufan wrote:

North wrote:People Magazine: Chris Soules Did Not Have Alcohol or Drugs in His System Following Fatal Crash, Attorneys State

I'm glad to see this. This just proves to it was just a horrible accident.

Or the alcohol had left his system before they managed to test him. I guess we'll never know. JMOAA.

I wonder how the delays in Chris getting tested will play out, though. Remember that he wouldn't open his door and respond to authorities for several hours? Just a thought...

As far as I know alcohol stays in your stystem for days

mizzoufan wrote: As far as I know alcohol stays in your stystem for days

Correct. Alcohol can be detected in one's system through a urine test up to 3-4 days later, sometimes even longer that that. I don't know when Chris was tested though as I haven't read anything.

I'm a little confused about why intoxication is an important consideration in this case? Did he not commit criminally negligent homicide/manslaughter? Wouldn't the sentence be similar in either case?
Please clarify?

“A report issued by the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation’s (DCI) Criminalistics Laboratory, Mr. Soules’ specimens were negative for drugs and alcohol,” new documents filed Friday by Soules’ legal team read.
http://people.com/tv/chris-soules-test-results-no-alcohol-drugs-system-following-crash/

According to Medlineplus, a urinalysis is the physical, chemical, and microscopic examination of the content of someone’s urinary output. There are two methods of collecting urine; 24-hour urine collection and clean catch urine specimen.
Some labs now use a testing method known as “EtG” for discovering how long alcohol has stayed in your system. “EtG” is an abbreviation for Ethyl Glucuronide. Ethyl Glucuronide is a biomarker that determines whether the body has metabolized any alcohol recently.

If a method known as “EtG”, is used to test for the presence of a related chemical, ethyl glucuronide, in the urine, the results can determine if alcohol has been ingested within approximately the past 80 hours


https://www.addict-help.com/how-long-does-alcohol-stay-in-your-urine-system/

I would think the Department of Criminal Investigations would use which ever method they could to prove that he did have alcohol in his system since they are working for law enforcement? I'm certainly no expert and have very little knowledge in this area.

If he had alcohol in his blood, he most likely would've been driving drunk while driving, too. That is a very serious issue if one drives intoxicated, and ends up in an accident, that people die in.

I take back my harsh criticism of Chris, he wasn't DUI, I'm glad. It was just an unfortunate accident, I don't think he deserves to be punished for that. Jmo.

Mia_Leoni wrote:I'm a little confused about why intoxication is an important consideration in this case? Did he not commit criminally negligent homicide/manslaughter? Wouldn't the sentence be similar in either case?
Please clarify?

Has it been proven that he was at fault for the wreck?

I am really curious about this, too. If it is confirmed that he is responsible, wouldn't he be advised to plead guilty for intoxication?

Intoxication is an important issue in the case because driving while intoxicated is a separately chargeable offense and in most states (don't know Iowa law) is a serious offense with serious consequences, even if injury\death of another was not involved. Driving while intoxicated would also be the strongest evidence imo (not a criminal lawyer) to prove criminal negligence that cased a death.

There is a distinction between negligence in the civil sense that would support a wrongful death suit by deceased person's family and negligence that rises to the level of criminal negligence. For example only, and not stating these are the facts in this case, but if it was twilight, visibility was murky, CS could be found negligent in civil sense for not being more careful when driving in murky visibility conditions. The same facts would not necessarily rise to the level of criminal negligence.

Geez, I'm just reading all of this stuff now. I don't typically follow CS, but I was curious enough to come to this thread when I saw that Corrine had hired the same lawyer that CS had. I was wondering for what? Sad.