love the deer howard !

She reported that after striking a tree and a house, a deer ran into her car. Is that what you meant to type Howard? It's not really what the picture shows.

FYI: Howard did not draw the dear, this is odiously the official police report, and they obviously did not believe the "The deer hit my car AFTER I hit the tree and house " story!

I too like the deer, no matter who put it there. You got to be careful, them trees and houses will jump out at you!!!!

The report reads: "Vehicle 1 collided with a tree in the yard of 6663 Swamp Road. Vehicle 1 then collided with the house at 6657 Swamp Road. Vehicle 1 left the scene. Driver of Vehicle 1 stated that a deer entered the roadway and ran into Vehicle 1."

It would appear that the fourth sentence is not intended to be chronological- instead an explanation for the sequence afforementioned. I would interpret the event: deer intercepts car, driver swerves, hitting tree and house. Of course, the explanation is provided by someone anxious to avoid legal consequences.

Swamp Road imposes on a large herd of deer and is duly avoided this time of year (rut). It is also an under-travelled alternative to Townline Road (Rt. 262), affording alcohol-consuming drivers a sense of invisibility. The latter being less than applicable; the driver has a Swamp Road address.

I think Howard's reports would benefit from a second set of eyes. Not that Howard is a poor writer, he's in a hurry. There was a story last week that had obviously been copy/paste-edited. Unfortunately, two opposing fragments contradicted each other. News has but one enemy: time; journalism does not expend accuracy and style. ...Kind of a quandry.

C.M., I'm quite confident is meant to convey the sequence of events as suggested in how I wrote the story.

The narrative begins, "Vehicle 1 was traveling westerly on Swamp Road. Vehicle 1 failed to negotiate the curve and traveled off the north shoulder of the road way." And then it picks up the quote above.

Now, I can see how you're reading it, but that's the sequence of events that Deputy Bordonaro writes.

There's no mention of the deer as a cause of her failure to negotiate the curve.

The Deputy reports, "Driver of Vehicle 1 stated that a deer entered the roadway..." The quote is out of context with the rest of the report. The prior information is unattributed, logically the Deputy's observations.

She was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving an animal. One must assume that she was interviewed at the scene of the house collision, necessarily, following the deer encounter. Otherwise she would have been charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage.

The arrows on the illustration support the deer, tree, house chronology.

Granted the report does not assign a cause and effect link to the deer and tree/house collision. The facts, seem to bear out the sequence of events as deer strike ahead of tree and house. Why else would the driver provide evidence to a car/deer collision if not to explain leaving the road?

It apears that we may be making much to do about nothing.......