He is not obligated to speak to the police. Know your rights people and end the lynch mobbing.

CONNECTICUT PATRICIAN HAS A POINT
When you talk to the police without a lawyer bad things can happen. To see what, check out Google Videos for "talking to police." In New Canaan, there have been retail employees who reported cash missing from a register where they worked who were subsequently accused, not questioned, of robbery. Subsequently, 1 of the pair became a lawyer.
Our constitution is there for a reason. Remember the US Supreme Court said the police can use deception in questioning. Comforting isn't it? Protect your rights. Ignore the tongue wagging.
BTW, I don’t know who did what and don’t know any of the participants.
If you disagree, post your thinking. This is where Patch really shines and the republic is served.

This is at least the 2nd traffic fatality on Ponus Ridge in the last 6 months. A friend had an accident on that street last year, and last week she showed me where it was - I was amazed because the area looks like the accident happened a week ago, not a year ago. She could very easily have been killed as well.

first of all, he did not 'vanish'. He went to Stamford Hospital. Not exactly trying to disappear to some unknown place--second, without knowing the complete details of what happened on that night, Michael Savage should not be burned to the cross..we are not France--it's not guilty until proven innocent. And third, even if Savage was had too much to drink that night and lost control of his car, it's still a very sad event. His life has changed forever because of this regardless of why it happened. Again, I say, 'let he who is without sin, cast the first stone'.

I think he vanished for about 7 to 8 hours to sober up. Then he showed up at the hospital. Just a hunch on my part.

Phyllis, what do you mean when you say, "not obligated to be held accountable"?

UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS
PHYLLIS, let me address your response and then ask you again what you meant.
First, there is no information that he contacted a lawyer, only that he wouldn’t speak to the police.
The person who called for emergency help for the elder Mr. Savage is unidentified. Maybe the police don’t know who the caller was because the caller didn’t want to meet with the police. Maybe the caller was drunk, who knows?
You can’t say what condition Michael Savage was in at the time of the accident by the fact that his hand needed stitches several hours later. You don’t even know where or how or when he got his hand injury.
As far as Michael Savage fleeing the scene, you don’t know where he went or why or even if he was there. If he was there, how do you know he didn’t go for help or didn’t call for someone to pick him up and call for help?
We don’t even know if the police have actually identified the driver of the car, only that they said Michael Savage was the driver. Maybe this is police deception. If the police actually knew he was driving the car at the time of the accident and that he fled, maybe they could have filed charges regardless of whether he spoke with them or not. They didn’t. Maybe they have nothing.
Maybe you know Connecticut Patrician and her motives better than we do. I have no idea. She is only stating her views of citizens' rights.
So, Phyllis, what do you mean when you say, "not obligated to be held accountable"?

Interesting how the Patch has no issue with people ready to hang Mr. Savage before his due process. But when people criticize Michael Borcina for being completely careless which caused the death of 5 not 1 but 5 people, well then the Patch deletes all those comments. Journalism and journalists at their finest.

PHYLLIS, you are thinking about the issues and that’s good. As more info becomes available, you will be in a better position to evaluate. Maybe Mr. Savage is innocent, maybe guilty. We just don’t know very much yet.
The lawyer named handles a variety of areas including homicides. There is a death involved and this is a high-profile case. This incident deserves careful thought and actions on both sides because it is serious and sad. Reconstruction is a good thing if done properly. Eyewitness testimony is wrong, we read, about 30% of the time, so physical evidence can be helpful.
The other questions you posted will be best answered by factual evidence, probably at trial. All our comments are based on what Patch posted at the time. Patch does a good job but things may become clearer over time.
You now want to hear hard evidence from both sides. You are ready for the jury box yourself. Congratulations.

Please do not forget the deceased also had rights so the more cooperation with the police department along with legal counsel the better to clear this up while the incident is still fresh. I understand why Michael Savage would want to have his attorney present so I hope he has come forward to explain what happened recently to his Dad; they both deserve that peace.

I doubt that is going to happen. He'll say exactly what his lawyer tells him to say.

What a horrible, terrible, tragic mess............

There are many of us who don't know how the deletion or "flag as inappropriate" process works, Jane. Would you clarify please? It looks as if it is the result of joint action between readers who would prefer comments be deleted and your editorial judgment, but this is only a supposition on my part.l Thanks and Happy New Year.

Hi S Tadik: When a user registers with Patch (s)he agrees to terms of use which can be found at the bottom of every page. According to these terms, "Patch will make all determinations as to what Content is appropriate at its sole discretion. We may include, edit or remove any Content at any time without notice." Patch does, however, give users the privilege of flagging comments they deem inappropriate. If enough users flag a comment, it is removed from the site.

I know this man personally and he is a heavy drinker and partier. I hope the police do their due diligence and find out where they were before the accident. If they were at a bar or restaurant, maybe a bartender or employee will come forward with proof that he was intoxicated. We all know that a sober man would not have fled the scene and left his father to die alone in the car. This is a terrible tragedy.

This is a terrible tragedy for sure. However, until we learn if there is proof the suspect was intoxicated, drove the car and caused the accident because of his intoxication, it is premature to pass judgment. Suppose both of them were drinking and his father got playful with the steering wheel. Maybe neither of them knew how much they drank. Maybe the father was dead on contact and he was really drunk and the son lightened up that night because he was driving.
Did the police test the father’s blood alcohol? There are too many maybe’s. We all know very little so far. Good investigation may turn up the answers and then we won’t need to guess or prejudge.
Greenhill’s comments seem to come from a Law and Order episode. “We just need to clear up a few things. Bring your dummy lawyer to the interrogation room. Man up.”

Maybe a couple of bears ran out of the woods and threw the car into a couple of trees landing on top of a stone wall.

Machete and Taylor, Esq.
Even though this seems like a classic Twinkie defense case, we will withhold any judgment until we have real facts.
The bears didn't have Jay Cutler to throw anything, so the Machete defense is out.
Blaming the accident on some unknown woman is sexist. More likely is a female impersonator. Sorry, Mr. Taylor.
Thank you for your help as jury consultants. We'll get back to you. The police may have something later this month.

Thanks for taking charge.

For the record, Jane and Sheryl are in charge. If they don't like a posting, out it goes.
However, as I review the last paragraph of my earlier post, I can see how you might feel ridiculed and while I was responding to zany theories, Patch is a great vehicle and I don't want to do anything to discourage dialogue from anybody. It's not personal, so please excuse my "jury consultant" and "getting back" comments. They contained no useful information and didn’t stimulate anybody’s thinking.

a sad tragedy no matter what.

This accident involving a death and people coming to conclusions before the police report has been published reminds me of the hit and run on 124 last year. You can't assume the son was drinking. Yes we can determine he was speading and left the scene and showed up at the hospital in the am. But where was he in the mean time? Where did he go after the accident until the police found him at the hospital? It does look like a cover up but whether he was sober or not, it is obviouse he must have been speeding and lost control, killing his father. Isn't that still wreckless driving and considered a form of vehiculer manslaughter or something along those lines? Why should he get off but the woman who hit and killed the man on 124 be charged?

he may not have been speeding and was attacked by a herd of deer which caused him to veer off the road and could have been carried off by one of the bucks until he managed to escape.

Tom: I've listened to people tell worse stories than that to police. Maybe it was a U.F.O. He's had enough time to think about what lies he'll tell the police to cover up the truth. Maybe he will blame it on the town for not posting enough warning signs to slow down or not having street lights on such a dangerouse road that in the past has caused fatalities and several car accidents. Maybe it was a deer that caused him to lose control and crash. I see them up there all the time at night. Maserati = speed.

Why lie? The suspect could make a mistake or commit perjury. If the police can come up with good evidence, there will be a conviction. If not, there won't.
If the US Supreme Court says actual innocence is not enough to reverse a conviction, and police can lie, why say anything? The process is working as it should. Nobody has come up with a better one yet even though the law has flaws. Be patient. Nobody is going anywhere.