By Edward Henderson
On Monday, June 29th 2015 at 9:45pm, Rakeem Lenoll Sharpe was involved in a fatal motorcycle accident. According to the police report created by witness accounts and examined evidence at the scene, Sharpe was riding southbound on 500 East 32nd Street executing a stunt maneuver involving separating the front wheel from the ground at an estimated 40 to 60 miles per hour after running a red light on the 400 block. As a result of over executing the maneuver, Sharpe’s motorcycle inverted separating him from the vehicle which collided with a driver making a left hand turn onto 32nd street eastbound from Valle Avenue. The driver of the second vehicle, by his own admittance, drove away from the scene of the accident to park his car in an alley adjacent to his home on 32nd street and returned on foot.
When officers and paramedics arrived at the scene, Sharpe was in cardiac arrest with possible leg injuries lying face down having slid on the pavement after the failed maneuver. He passed away seven days later after being taken off of life support at his family’s request.
Officers spoke with the second driver and discovered he did not have a valid driver’s license and was identified by his Mexican Consular Card which is an identification card issued to Mexican foreign nationals living in the United States. The driver informed police he was returning from work at the time of the accident and hadn’t consumed any alcohol or illegal substances. Because police concluded Sharpe was at fault for the accident, no further investigation was conducted on the second driver.
At a candle light vigil for Sharpe organized by his mother Sherryl Rowser, neighbors began to come out and share different accounts of what they saw happen. It prompted Rowser to reach out to Stewart Pain, a family friend, to look deeper into the police report.
“Listening to what they said occurred made no sense. He was a new motor cycle rider so the suggestion he was popping a wheelie at that time of night made no sense,” said Pain. “What we’re asking the police department to do is to reinvestigate and pursue charges against the driver of the car.”
Pain highlighted four main points they’d like the police department to look further into involving the accident. Firstly, new witnesses have provided conflicting accounts that the second driver wasn’t making a left hand turn onto 32nd street and the collision came head on. Secondly, evidence on the scene that wasn’t originally documented including the lack of damage to Sharpe’s clothing and the position of his cell phone after the accident brings up questions surrounding the physics of the conclusions drawn around how the accident occurred. Thirdly, the police never verified rather the second driver worked that day, if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or if he was texting or on his cell phone at the time of the accident. Lastly, the second driver was never cited for leaving the scene of the accident and in the eyes of Rowser and Pain this constitutes hit and run charges.
A new officer has been put on the case and is currently reviewing the original findings and investigating new witnesses and evidence brought to light by Pain and Rowser.
