Hey, there! Log in / Register

Driver slams into two pedestrians, killing one, then takes off, on Washington Street in Roxbury

By adamg on Sat, 01/18/2025 - 11:49pm
Surveillance photo of suspect vehicle

Surveillance photo of suspect vehicle via BPD.

Police are looking for a dark SUV whose driver they say hit two pedestrians on Washington Street between Northampton and Lenox streets, then drove away, around 8:30 p.m.

Boston Police report two women were taken to the hospital, 23 and 20, and that the 20-year-old was pronounced dead.

The vehicle is described as a 2021–2023 dark-colored Mercedes small SUV, which has damage to the front grille and front light and is missing its right-side mirror.

Anybody with information can call homicide detectives at 617-343-4470 or contact the anonymous tip line by calling 1-800-494-TIPS or by texting TIP to CRIME (27463).

Neighborhoods: 
Roxbury
Topics: 
Crime
Driving
Free tagging: 
Washington Street
pedestrians


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By Ari O on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 7:01am.

They should have stayed at the scene and talked to the police. There are zero consequences when you do that. They don't even make your name public!

By Michael on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 8:00am.

There are also usually zero consequences for driving home, sobering up, and going on with your life

By _Sean on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 7:18pm.

How long is BPD going to screw up sending important security camera footage? This is--yet again--some idiot taking a picture of a computer monitor. There is SO MUCH detail lost in this I would've though even the idiots at BPD would've learned to get the actual screengrab. But apparently not....

By Pete Nice on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 11:47am.

It looks the same on my screen right now. There is no detail lost bud.

By robo on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 8:16am.

Mow down a pedestrian in a crosswalk and don’t get charged or named. You’d think public employees would be held to a slightly higher standard, but I guess not.

By Jiggles on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 8:59am.

Maybe their family members are reading this hoping for information. Put a pipe in the sarcasm

By Lee on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 9:24am.

.

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:17pm.

Sure.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 12:12pm.

in our legal system that presumes people are innocent until a court of law finds them guilty of a crime.

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:18pm.

People who murder with cars never seem to be charged with a crime.

How convenient.

When it comes to gun or motor vehicle, the choice of murder weapon is clear.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:22pm.

isn't always reality. That's why investigations are conducted and criminal charges must be supported by facts and the law.

By spin_o_rama on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:38pm.

https://www.bicyclelaw.com/no-indictment-against-truck-driver-in-fatal-w...

Wellesley Police and the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office sought an indictment against the driver alleging motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation, unsafe overtaking of a bicyclist and failing to take precautions for the safety of other travelers, but the Norfolk County Grand Jury declined to indict him on any of the charges.

“The Police Department and District Attorney felt that we had probable cause,” said Wellesley Police Chief Terrence Cunningham. “We are clearly disappointed that the grand jury disagreed with that and came back with no bill. We felt that the operator of that tractor trailer should have been held accountable for his actions that day.”

Wellesley Police spent more than three months investigating the crash, according to a statement from the department, and presented the grand jury with more than 50 evidence exhibits as well as testimony from investigators and witnesses.

The grand jury, said Cunningham, is not required to explain why it chose not to indict.

https://theswellesleyreport.com/2013/02/grand-jury-no-criminal-charges-i...

Investigators grilled McCoomb on his past driving record as well as whether there was any chance he intentionally hit the cyclist (they tried to determine if Motsenigos had in any way angered the driver by the way he was operating his 2-month-old bicycle). According to the police report, McCoomb’s driving record is beyond checkered: 19 license suspensions over the past 30 or so years; six surchargeable accidents; and several moving violations. While the driving record could be used by investigators to determine probable cause, the record was not admissible as evidence during grand jury proceedings.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 5:15pm.

I don't waste much energy discussing the nuances of complex issues with someone who considers the word "whatever" followed by some random case as evidence of something grand and generalizable. You can go be a conspiracy theorist somewhere else. I suppose all the grand jury panelists across the state are plotting against pedestrians and bikers? lmao

By spin_o_rama on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 5:49pm.

discussing the nuances of complex issues with someone who puts words in other peoples mouths.

I suppose all the grand jury panelists across the state are plotting against pedestrians and bikers? lmao

lmao, incredible even
https://www.universalhub.com/comment/998751#comment-998751

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 6:26pm.

what this gibberish is supposed to imply. People who post this type of cryptic innuendo without adding a logical argument usually means one either can't or is afraid to formulate one. Standing by for your next innuendo link. "whatever" - lmao

By berkleealum on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 10:20am.

very weird

By eddie van halen on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 10:27am.

not dying at all. The question is not a strawman nor is "putting words in someone's mouth." It was a question. The poster had every opportunity to elaborate on how their *anecdotal* tale about ONE case is generalizable to the entire group, and they chose not to. Not my problem nor is it comparable to someone else who posted a blatant lie about pedestrian laws in the Commonwealth and, when confronted with the facts, changed the topic to something that better suits his argument. But thanks for that very weird Berklee "logic" about dying on some hill.. LOL

By lbb on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 11:55am.

followed by some random case

What was "random" about this case? Seems apropos to me.

By eddie van halen on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 1:22pm.

The premise was "people who murder with cars never seem to be charged with a crime." Tell us how this one case supports the sweeping generalization that people who *murder* with their cars are never charged with a crime. If you can't logically explain how it supports that sweeping generalization, then its a random case.

As a side note, you don't even know what evidence the grand jury was presented with or what they discussed. You don't know anything about it. Not that that matters at all regarding how the one case supports the generalization.

By berkleealum on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 1:41pm.

congrats, it is specifically true that the word never is being used incorrectly.

By eddie van halen on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 1:48pm.

take the word never out and speak to the rest of what I wrote. No, it's not pedantry but that's what you want it to be. One poster made a generalization and another posted one case as to imply that it proved the generalization. How does that one case support the generalization in any substantive way? Thanks for your pettifogging. Seems to be all you have.

If you're going to follow a comment about presumption of innocence with some sweeping generalization about people who you think "murder with cars" and don't get charged, you really need something more than one random case to not sound like a complete moron. That's not to mention the fact that you don't even have all the facts of that one case. SMH

By dvg on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 8:48am.

This is a particularly bad week of drivers ramming into pedestrians at high speed on Boston crosswalks with their SUVs.

Adam, in case your read this, do you have a way to follow up on the circonstances of the 23 year old who was fattaly hit in Andrew Square last Sunday? The Globe had a orbituary piece about the victim on Wednesday, but nothing was said about who killed him or why.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/15/metro/family-mourns-mattapoisett-...

By Frelmont on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 9:28am.

Many, many drivers are horrible at scanning for and stopping for pedestrians either in the crosswalk, or pedestrians who are conspicuously waiting at the cusp of the crosswalk for cars to slow down so they may set foot in the crosswalk and be technically “in the crosswalk.”

It’s criminal for a driver to leave the scene of an accident.

Rule number one: Never, never, never hit a pedestrian! And the Golden Rule for crossing in the middle of an intersection is never put yourself, or others in harm’s way. If a tree falls in the forest… if you jay walk when it's clear…

It’s likely they were crossing when it was clear and a distracted excessive speeder hit them.

Is a crosswalk involved in this case? Google Maps doesn’t show a crosswalk on Washington between Lennox and Northhampton. Were the victims getting in a car on the street side? Walking on the side of the road in the bus and bike lane? Or, crossing the street in the middle of an intersection?

Nobody should be driving at a speed that exceeds the reaction and braking time for given road conditions. People must govern themselves responsibly and not succumb to cockpit distractions as well. This is not a car problem, this is a societal problem. What exactly happened in this hit and run?

By Boston_res on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 10:30am.

It's the fundamental speed law. It's captured on page 65 of the MA Drivers Manual. Too many drivers don't know about this, don't understand it, or just don't care. Their licenses ought to be revoked along with all of their respective vehicle registrations.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/english-drivers-manual/download

By Lee on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 10:55am.

Pedestrians have the right of way in the entire roadway.
If you are driving too fast to stop for a pedestrian in any part of the road, especially in a city where there are lots of pedestrians, then you are driving too fast.

No excuse for leaving the scene unless you are having a medical emergency. Any driver who does that should be automatically presumed to be intoxicated and prosecuted as such and punished to the full extent of the law. If this was how the laws worked, we’d likely have less hit and runs. And maybe less crashes.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 1:15pm.

This is the actual law with respect to your claims about pedestrian right of way.

Chapter 89 Section 11: Marked crosswalks; yielding right of way to pedestrians; penalty

Section 11. When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.

No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.

Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $200.

Whenever a pedestrian is injured by a motor vehicle in a marked crosswalk, the department of state police or the municipal police department with jurisdiction of the street, in consultation with department of state police if deemed appropriate, shall conduct an investigation into the cause of the injury and any violation of this section or other law or ordinance and shall issue the appropriate civil or criminal citation or file an application for the appropriate criminal complaint, if any. This section shall not limit the ability of a district attorney or the attorney general to seek an indictment in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle which causes injury or death and which violates this section.

By Lee on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:31pm.

… to mow down pedestrians.

Drivers must yield to pedestrians in every part of the road.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 5:04pm.

This in no way gives drivers a right … to mow down pedestrians.

Did someone here make that claim, or are you just strawman-ning, again? You claimed that pedestrians always have the right of way anywhere in the road. That's disinformation.

By robo on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 6:19pm.

.

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:20pm.

They don't.

Pedestrians have to follow the laws like everyone else. If you have a light and it is a Big Red Hand, that means you don't have the right of way - even if you don't hear a car coming.

You must be that jackass who screamed at me about "running red lights" when I nearly hit them when biking through a GREEN LIGHT.

By Lee on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:35pm.

But it looks like your feelings are still hurt.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 5:52pm.

You should be aware that you aren't special and don't get special rights because you think your bike makes you special or are in a hurry or what the **** ever.

By spin_o_rama on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 6:01pm.

n/t

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 6:08pm.

Not mine. See below.

By SwirlyGrrl on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 1:47pm.

To ... RIDE THROUGH A GREEN LIGHT?

Seriously - get a better hobby.

By Will on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 10:34am.

Washington in the stretch from Melnea Cass to the Cathedral and beyond is basically a speedway. Drivers have a width path and unobstructed views that allow them to see two, sometimes three, streetlights ahead. This invites drivers to speed to make the lights, and that includes yellow and "was still yellow when I was just 50 yards away".

If you live here you learn to yield to the traffic. The crossing at West Dedham where Washington passes the Cathedral is uniquely bad.

Flynn should get on this. Nothing can stop the criminal hit-and-run, but there's lots of calming needed. Not easy given that the silver lines runs here and a few bus lines (8, 10) for a few blocks, but long overdue.

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 1:46pm.

you should learn to be cautious of the traffic.

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:22pm.

You should be aware that you aren't special and don't get special rights because you think your car makes you special or are in a hurry or what the fuck ever.

We need to start camera enforcement and start yanking licenses from people who don't fucking get that driving isn't a right and they have responsibilities.

Take this Mahhhhhty bullshit and cram it!

By eddie van halen on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:48pm.

as a resident, a pedestrian, a driver, and a biker in this city off and on all my life and always exercise my duty to be cautious in all three roles.

By Frelmont on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 9:12am.

Who are we? A free, moral people with the agency to make moral choices and to cultivate and grow in our morality, or are we a fearful people kept in line by the yolk of government surveillance demanding obedience with a firm grip on the scruffs of our necks?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -BF

There is no due process with surveillance technology, there is only abuse upon abuse. Abuse of our fortunes, abuse of our time, abuse of our reputations. There are legitimate safety reasons to briefly exceed the speed limit, go through a red light to clear an intersection for sirens, or a number of other reasons, go into a bus lane to avoid a pot hole, disabled driver, cue-up to turn right, and on, and on….

I draw a distinction between enforcement and collecting tolls -even the vampire, Frankentolls in Ma, which should be dead and buried, though the fee/fine when your transponder doesn’t get scanned anywhere on the seaboard is predacious.

https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/news/why-iowa-must-ban-traffic-cameras

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/lawsuit-city-cameras-make-it...

By lbb on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 11:57am.

we a fearful people kept in line by the yolk of government surveillance demanding obedience blah blah blah

You really need to stop sniffing glue and reading Ayn Rand, my dude.

By adamg on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 1:35pm.

One of the two victims died.

By Delle Ave Kid on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 4:18pm.

My insight on this is a tad skewed as a crash victim wherein I was in my own car, not a pedestrian.
Living through what I have, I'm beyond infuriated and heartbroken for these women and their families and what they're going through right now. I desperately hope the murdered woman's family gets enough financial help to have a respectful memorial, and bills covered for both, care services for the survivor etc. but it won't happen through the state's so-called judicial system whether they catch the driver or not, whether they were OUI or not.

Even non-badge-wearing citizens often get very little punishment for OUI crashes; the drunk woman who hit me at 3:45pm on a Monday blew a 0.41 onscene... you read that correctly, confirmed by blood test after. Non-professional alcoholics would be comatose at 8x the legal limit for drunkenness, most people would be dead at 0.5, but she was driving a huge GMC pickup she didn't own, without a license thanks to her previous DUIs, going 65 in a 30mph zone.
Arrested onscene, in court she got sentenced to a state-paid stay in detox and two years' probation.

Me? I got a life sentence; broken spine, brain injury, permanently disabled, lost my business; the owner of the truck didn't have much insurance so what little I got didn't even cover the loss of our car and initial medical bills, and there's this little issue about collecting disability benefits that most people don't know about.

Even though the state ruled me 100% disabled, I can't collect the benefits I'm entitled to because my spouse makes more than the state allows. Which isn't enough to support a family of three in MA in the first place, nevermind negating my existence as a person in my own right and turning me into spousal baggage. It's called the marriage penalty. Also prevents disabled people from getting married because they'll lose any benefits they're getting.

But the un-injured drunk driver on probation gets to keep on collecting disability payments because she's still an alcoholic, guess that detox in her court sentencing doesn't actually have to succeed.

MA justice, y'all. Kill a bicyclist or a pedestrian, destroy the lives of other drivers, you'll still be better off than whoever you hit if you even get charged at all.

By dvg on Sun, 01/19/2025 - 7:36pm.

Wow, that's one hell of a story, quite literally.

My main theory for why our society is so permissive about dangerous driving is that few people are willing to vote for, or see strict enforcement of rules that would apply to themselves. Even though it would save a lot of lives, misery and money (insurance), few lawmakers and cops seem interested in seeing a strict enforcement of speeding and drinking because they too would have to comply.

By Lee on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 9:41am.

People tend to identify with the driver, if they rely on cars and break traffic laws themselves.
Add to that the general misconception that the roads belong to drivers only. Might makes right in many people’s minds.

By Lee on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 9:45am.

Often pity is expressed for scofflaw drivers who kill and maim. “Oh, the guilt they have to live with!”
It’s misplaced to say the very least.