The Cult of Cameron, Part III
The Conspiracy Theorists, aka Cameron Herrin’s Supporters
I’ve had experience with conspiracy theorists. And I admit that following them and taunting them is a guilty pleasure of mine. For instance, I spent years refuting the claims of the birthers. For those that don’t know, “birthers” are conspiracy theorists who claim that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and was therefore ineligible to serve as President.
And in looking at the conspiracy theorists who support Cameron Herrin, I’ve come to realize what should have been obvious to me long ago: conspiracy theorists reason backwards.
I will explain what I mean by this. When a reasonable person wishes to find out the truth of a matter, they start from a position of no knowledge. They dispassionately examine the evidence and arrive at a conclusion, without any preconceived biases as to what that conclusion should be.
A conspiracy theorist, by contrast, starts with the conclusion they want to be true, and, with confirmation bias firmly in place, they start looking at the evidence and applying interpretations that support this conclusion.
In the case of the birthers, they don’t ask, “Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the U.S.?” and try to answer this question. (Spoiler alert: the answer is yes.) They decide before they even start that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, then start looking for evidence that supports this conclusion. And if the facts don’t fit the conclusion, they alter the facts. They have been known to apply incorrect interpretations of Supreme Court rulings and even the Constitution itself to support this conclusion. And if the courts don’t agree with their interpretation, they start to imagine all kinds of behind-the-scenes dirty dealings, such as Obama threatening the judges, etc.
In the case of Cameron Herrin supporters, these conspiracy theorists don’t ask whether Cameron killed Jessica and Lillia Raubenolt; they start with the conclusion that they prefer: that Cameron is innocent. Then they start looking back at all the evidence of his guilt, and come up with explanations as to how the evidence is wrong. They also look at certain aspects that they consider anomalous, and hold this up as “proof.” In true conspiracy theorist fashion, they concoct fanciful tales of cops taking bribes, the state government operating with a hidden agenda, threats and all manner of coercion. Then they conclude that they have solved some mystery that adult professionals who have actually investigated this incident — viewing the scene of the accident and handling the evidence — have overlooked.
I realize that sounds like I’m disparaging them. I don’t mean to. Truth to be told, I feel sorry for some of them. Most of them aren’t malicious, certainly. But they have misplaced loyalties. They have such high hopes and naively believe they have proven Cameron’s innocence.
I should also note here that not every Cameron Herrin supporter believes that he is innocent. Some believe that he is guilty and should be punished, but that the punishment given by the courts is too harsh.
So, I’m just going to address a few of the bogus claims that the conspiracy theorist Cameron supporters make.
“21-Year-Old Kid” and “Unintentional Accident”
I’ll start with this one, which includes two of the most frequent points I see by Cameron Herrin defenders.
First, as Bryan Raubenolt (brother of David Raubenolt; therefore brother-in-law to Jessica and uncle to Lillia) emphatically stated during the sentencing hearing, Cameron Herrin is not a kid. He was 18 at the time of the accident, and he was 21 years old when he was sentenced. And according to the laws of Florida, an 18-year-old is an adult, not a kid.
And as David Raubenolt (Jessica’s husband, Lillia’s father) and Michelle Clark (Jessica’s sister-in-law, Lillia’s aunt and godmother, sister to David and Bryan) stated, if we’re going to start thinking of 18-year-olds as kids, then we need to reconsider the laws that allow them to drive in the first place. 18-year-old males are also required to register for the selective service, in which the government reserves the right to send them off to die for their country. 18-year-olds are also allowed to vote.
In the state of Florida, and most of the rest of the United States, you’re considered an adult on your 18th birthday. You assume a number of rights on your 18th birthday. And with those adult rights comes adult responsibilities.
Next, let’s talk about the “unintentional accident.” They keep calling it an “unintentional accident,” which is annoying because it’s redundant. They don’t need to say “unintentional accident” because all accidents are unintentional. That’s the defining characteristic of accidents; they are not intended. You can’t have an “intentional accident.”
On the subject of “intention,” when someone intentionally creates extremely dangerous situations, any mishaps that result are not “accidents.” Let’s suppose that Cameron Herrin were throwing rocks off a highway overpass because he liked to watch the rocks bounce off the street below. Then let’s suppose he unintentionally hits a motorist and kills them.
Do you think it would be availing if he said in court, “But it was an accident!”? Of course not. Any reasonable person would be disgusted. Why? Because he created a dangerous and completely unnecessary situation. There was no valid reason to throw rocks off a highway overpass and doing so runs the risk of hitting someone’s car and hurting someone.
And so it is with Cameron Herrin. He had no reason or right to be speeding down Bayshore Boulevard at 102 miles per hour, over two and a half times the speed limit of 40 miles per hour. It is an unnecessary and dangerous act. Moreover, the courts had established that, as far as Cameron Herrin was concerned, egregious speed limit violations were the rule, not the exception. Even in a residential area, like Bayshore Boulevard, he simply didn’t care about speed limits. With no indication that Cameron was ever going to start respecting the speed limits, or even stop violating them so egregiously — for instance, driving down Bayshore Boulevard at 60 mph, instead of 80+ — it became only a matter of time before he hurt or killed someone.
Cameron intentionally and with premeditation turned his car into a very dangerous projectile. Driving at 102 in a 40 mph zone, which he knows has a high volume of foot traffic, is not just speeding. It’s not like he was doing 51 in a 40 mph zone. He was doing 102 mph in a residential area, in full daylight, just before noon. He was driving at over 2 1/2 times the speed limit. How could he not expect, given the way he drives, that he wasn’t going to eventually hurt someone?
In short, Cameron Herrin not only was doing something stupid, unnecessary and highly dangerous when he killed Jessica and Lillia, but he had a habit of it. It should be no surprise to anyone that he finally killed someone. You cannot call it an accident when he deliberately, with premeditation, and over a period of weeks, created increasingly dangerous situations without regard for the lives and safety of others.
Cameron is not a Criminal!
There have been numerous Tweets and articles (such as this one) insisting that Cameron Herrin is not a criminal. But he is. His driving habits alone make him a criminal.
The greater the violation of the speed limit, the more serious it becomes. And in certain situations, it becomes criminal.
In looking at the website above, you’ll see the following under point 5, “30 MPH Over the Limit.”
Also note the following under point 6, “50 MPH Over the Limit.”
So, with sufficiently egregious speeding violations, which Cameron certainly was doing, a driver can be charged with misdemeanors or even felonies.
Even without the two counts of vehicular manslaughter and the misdemeanor charge of illegal racing, Cameron speeding violations qualify as misdemeanors, even felonies. When he killed Jessica and Lillia, he was over 62 mph over the speed limit. He is a criminal.
It’s the City of Tampa’s Fault!
In another attempt to shift blame from their adored Cameron, they attempt to blame the city of Tampa for not making Bayshore Boulevard safer. One such claim:
This claim that Bayshore is dangerous is often repeated. It appears to be an argument that Cameron should not be held responsible for the deaths he caused, because the street itself is dangerous.
So, they aver, it is the street that caused the accident. Not the fact that Cameron was driving at 102 mph in a 40 mph zone in a residential area. This would seem to be an absolutely ridiculous argument. Whether the street is dangerous or not, it does not excuse reckless driving, nor any harm that may come from this reckless driving.
One of the more ridiculous assertions I’ve seen about Bayshore Boulevard comes from someone who is not even a resident of the United States, much less a resident of Florida. Yet, they speak so authoritatively on Bayshore Boulevard, a street that is less than 30 miles from my home.
See the comments section of this article.
Bayshore Boulevard is very much intended for pedestrians. In fact, according to this article, it boasts the longest sidewalk in the world. (I have since learned that this statement is incorrect. Bayshore Boulevard’s sidewalk is actually the second longest sidewalk in the United States, surpassed only by Seawall Boulevard in Galveston, Texas.) And this sidewalk is on the water’s edge, lined with benches, drinking fountains and exercise equipment. On the other side of Bayshore Boulevard, there are palatial homes and high-rise apartments. And since the only way for those who live on Bayshore Boulevard to access the sidewalk is to cross the street, pedestrians are not only expected on Bayshore Boulevard, but commonplace.
Blame the Victim!
In an effort to deflect responsibility from their adored Cameron, his supporters have insisted it was Jessica’s fault because she crossed the road illegally. This lie has gained a lot of traction and Cameron’s reporters insist on repeating it.
At this point, you shouldn’t be surprised to realize that this isn’t true.
On August 10, 2021, Newsweek ran this article, which included,
In April, Cameron Herrin was sentenced to 24 years in prison after pleading guilty to vehicular homicide. Jessica Reisinger-Raubenolt and her 21-month-old daughter Lillia were struck by Herrin’s car in 2018 while lawfully crossing a road in Tampa Bay.
On July 14, 2021, Fox13 ran this article, also confirming the Jessica crossed legally.
Jessica Reisinger Raubenolt and her daughter Lillia were trying to cross the street at West Knights Avenue in what police later described as a “lawful crossing.”
Not that this has done any good. A search on Twitter for “Jessica crossed illegally” will reveal that Cameron Herrin’s supporters have been repeating this like a mantra.
One of the more outrageous and disgusting accusations is that Jessica intentionally killed herself and her baby.
I would imagine that someone in Jessica’s family would have known if she felt herself trapped in a horrible marriage and was desperate to escape. Yet, Jessica’s family all seem to get along very well with David, who was seen embracing Pamela Reisinger (Jessica’s mother) during Cameron’s sentencing hearing and holding her hand in the courtroom.
Doubtless, Cameron Herrin’s supporters will argue this is not sufficiently persuasive that Jessica and David had a good marriage. Perhaps not, but it’s still more evidence than they have that Jessica committed suicide. That doesn’t stop them from repeating this lie.
On the subject of Jessica’s husband David, many of Cameron’s supporters seem to have a profound and obsessive hatred for this man. The one who should be regarded with the most sympathy. It was his wife and child who died, his entire family. Yet, instead, they insult him at every opportunity, while hypocritically claiming they are sympathetic to him.
Some of it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the law works, even suggesting that David was the one who sent Cameron to prison.
Allow me to explain the differences between civil and criminal court. Civil court seeks to heal, or at least mitigate the damages suffered by those wrongfully harmed by others. Criminal court seeks to punish offenders.
Because Cameron killed his wife and child through a willful and contemptuous disregard for the law and the lives and safety of others, David and the Reisingers have the right to take Cameron to civil court and sue him for monetary compensation. While no amount of money can replace our loved ones, in United States, we have the right to demand monetary compensation should we suffer loss due to the negligence or reckless behavior of others. And Cameron Herrin was certainly reckless when he killed Jessica and Lillia.
To head this off, Chris and Cheryl, Cameron’s parents, attempted to pay the money that would have undoubtedly been awarded to them in civil court.
The payment to David and the Reisingers was to avert a civil suit. Nothing more.
Now for criminal court. Neither David nor the Reisingers are responsible for the criminal charges brought against Cameron. That is the state’s doing. Cameron broke the law with his reckless driving, and killed two people. For this, the State charged him with illegal racing and two counts of vehicular homicide.
David had nothing to do with the state’s decision to press criminal charges against Cameron Herrin, nor could he have prevented the state from pressing charges, even if he wanted to. Furthermore, David was not essential to the state in their decision to press charges. They could have (and absolutely would have) proceeded with or without David.
David, the Reisingers, and two of David’s siblings were allowed to make what are called victim impact statements. A victim impact statement is when the victims are allowed to confront the accused in court and explain to the court how the crime affected them. Or, in this case, since both victims are dead, the ones closest to the victims are allowed to make victim impact statements.
And if Cameron goes through the appeals process, they may be allowed to make victim impact statements again. And if, at the end of Cameron’s sentence, he is up for parole and the Department of Corrections is debating whether to let Cameron out early, they can also address the Department of Corrections to make victim impact statements there.
To reiterate, David and the Reisingers were allowed to address the court and express how Cameron’s killing of Jessica and Lillia affected him. But they had nothing to do with the state’s decision to press charges. The state would have done that with or without them.
Cameron Wasn’t Speeding and He Wasn’t Racing!
Given the fact that most of Cameron’s supporters are Middle Eastern females who are proficient in English, but hardly fluent, I’m not sure if this is a misunderstanding on their part or a deliberate distortion.
I believe this comes from a misunderstanding or distortion of the statement made by the investigating police officer who first arrived at the scene where Jessica and Lillia were struck down.
John Fitzgibbons asked the officer, “As you reconstructed the events, you concluded at the time of the impact, the Mustang was traveling between 30 and 40 miles per hour?”
“At impact, yes,” the officer replied.
From this, Cameron Herrin’s supporters either erroneously concluded or intentionally distorted that Cameron Herrin’s vehicle was traveling at that speed the whole time he was on Bayshore Boulevard. Obviously, the only speed that the officer could verify was how fast the car was traveling at the moment of impact. Which he measured by the distance that Jessica and Lillia’s bodies traveled at the moment of impact. (Lillia, according to Brian Raubenolt, traveled 70 feet.) He never claimed that Cameron’s car consistently travelled at that speed the entire time, nor could he have known that.
This has been explained in many articles. And I honestly can’t tell if Cameron Herrin supporters are being stupid or disingenuous and merely pretending not to understand what should be obvious. Cameron had reached a speed of 102, saw Jessica and Lillia, then braked hard, reducing his speed to 30 to 40 miles per hour at the moment of impact.
As for the claim of speeding, Cameron’s own lawyer admits that Cameron was driving at 102 mph.
Cameron wasn’t racing because the insurance company wouldn’t have paid the five million dollars if he were!
I can only conclude that this claim is willful distortion on the part of the Cameron’s Cultists. They gleaned this little tidbit of information from the testimony of Cheryl Herrin (Cameron’s mother), but conveniently ignore the rest of what she had to say.
While on the witness stand during Cameron’s sentencing hearing, Cheryl was questioned regarding a five million dollar insurance policy that was used to pay off the Reisingers and David Raubenolt in order to head off a civil suit. John Fitzgibbons (Cameron’s attorney) asked if “there was an exclusion in the umbrella insurance policy that would cause the insurance company to absolutely decline to pay that money.”
“Yes,” Cheryl replied. “There’s an exclusion for racing.”
In other words, the insurance company would refuse to pay the five million dollars (which formed the bulk of the settlement awarded to the Reisingers and David Raubenolt) if it were found that the policy holder were street racing.
From this, the Cameron Herrin supporters conclude that Cameron could not have been racing, otherwise the insurance company wouldn’t have paid the five million dollars.
This might have been a persuasive argument but for a couple of things. First, as noted above, Cameron already pleaded guilty to the charge of racing. What the insurance company decides is irrelevant. When Cameron pleaded guilty, the state can assume he is guilty. A guilty plea is considered presumptive proof.
And more importantly, there is another portion of Cheryl’s testimony that the Cameron Cultists would prefer you didn’t know about.
As Cheryl revealed, the Herrins had hired lawyers to compel the insurance company to pay, regardless of the state’s accusations. Cheryl disclosed that, at one point, they had hired five different lawyers to address their insurance claim.
Fitzgibbons asked, “You were also aware that during this time, the state of Florida had charged your son Cameron with racing?”
“Yup,” Cheryl replied.
“So, if the state’s position was correct, that gave the insurance company a way out, a very wide door, to walk right out and deny coverage, and that would be it. Is that correct?”
“Yes, that’s correct.”
Then Cheryl continued, “And that’s why it was so important to attempt to get this settled prior to any lawsuit. Because I knew they [the Reisingers] would lose their benefits [emphasis added].”
So, the only stipulation in the Herrins’ insurance policy (that was discussed in court) is that the insurance company would not pay should it be found that racing was involved. And Cheryl also felt it was necessary to compel the insurance company to pay “prior to any lawsuit.” Because she “knew they would lose their benefits.”
And how could Cheryl have known that the Reisingers would lose their benefits from the Herrins’ insurance policy? Obviously, because she knew her son was racing.
But how could Cheryl speak so authoritatively and confidently that she knew the insurers would refuse to pay?
When questioned by Fitzgibbons, Cheryl revealed that she had worked for an insurance company for 30 years and is retired now. “I was in the executive branch for about twenty years. I had vice-presidents reporting to me. I handled litigation for several states, so I’m familiar with coverage issues, and I’m also familiar with the position that insurers can take to make sure they’re not paying five million dollars.”
She further revealed that her employer was one of the biggest insurance companies in the world and that she handled litigation in California, Texas and Florida, the three most populous states in the U.S.
So, to reiterate, the Herrins’ insurance policy would refuse to pay if it were found that that Cameron was racing when he collided with Jessica and Lillia. And the Cameron Cultists are quick to point this out.
What they don’t want you do know is that Cheryl, who spent twenty years as a high-powered executive for one of the largest insurance companies in the world, moved to compel the insurance company to pay “prior to any lawsuit,” because she “knew [the Reisingers] would lose their benefits” if they attempted to sue the insurance company for payment of benefits. (I have since heard that Cheryl worked for State Farm, which is indeed one of the largest insurance providers in the world. However, I have no confirmation on this.)
Selective listening is something else that conspiracy theorists are known for. They hear what they want to hear, and they’ve been known to ignore any pertinent information that would argue against their claims.
Question for Cameron Herrin Supporters
If you truly support Cameron because you perceive some great injustice, why aren’t you involved in other injustices within the United States?
For instance, why not the cause of Elizabeth Rodriguez? If you think Cameron being charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter for two people he killed, how do you feel about a woman being charged with three counts of murder for three teenaged boys that she didn’t kill, unintentionally or otherwise?
Let me fill you in. On March 27, 2017, Elizabeth Rodriguez was 21 years old and a mother of three children. She needed money, so she recruited her boyfriend, Maxwell Cook, 18, their roommate Jacob Redfearn, 18, and Jaykob Woodruff, 15, to burglarize a house for her. They stole some stereo equipment from the garage, and Elizabeth waited for them in the car. However, upon returning home, Elizabeth realized that even after fencing (selling to a pawnshop which deals in stolen merchandise) the items, she still wouldn’t have enough to make rent, so she drove the three teenagers back to the same house and waited for them in the car while they burglarized the place for more stolen items. However, this time, they actually went into the house.
And here is where things went tragically wrong.
The homeowner’s 23-year-old son, Zach Peters, happened to be inside, taking a nap. He awakened to the sound of breaking glass and a door being kicked in. Peters then armed himself with an AR-15 rifle, and confronted the boys. After a brief exchange of words, Peters shot all three of them, then barricaded himself in the bedroom. He immediately called for emergency assistance and reported to hear one of them still talking in the house. Two of them died in the house. One of them managed to flee the house but died in the driveway.
Zach Peters was not charged, as Oklahoma has the “Make My Day” law, which protects the rights of homeowners to use deadly force against home invaders.
And although Elizabeth Rodriguez never even left the car and certainly didn’t kill anyone, she was charged with felony murder. The charge of felony murder occurs if the suspect is engaged in a particular felony (such as burglary), and deaths result. Since Elizabeth Rodriguez was participating in a burglary when the three deaths occurred, she was charged with felony murder, even though she didn’t pull the trigger and had no intent to cause anyone’s death. At first she pleaded not guilty, but then changed her plea to guilty. She is now serving three sentences of 35 years each. Although, mercifully, she is allowed to serve her sentences concurrently. 35 years for murder, and she never killed anyone.
Is that justice to you?