In an article about the 25th anniversary of the Susan Smith murders, police officer Eddie Harris recalls that when they pulled the car out of the water (after nine days) “the lights were still on.” He didn’t specify headlights or interior lights, but I’m really, really skeptical of either. Could any lights still be burning on a car that had been completely submerged in water for more than a week?
Nope, not remotely possible. The only magical way this would work is for the lights to to have shut down while under water and then resumed when pulled out. But that’s not how classic car lights would have worked.
The circuit from battery to lights would remain on even under water and go until the battery is drained. (Which would be accelerated due to being in water.) Less than a day.
One thing to keep in mind: People’s memories of events, even cops’ memories, are terrible.
Reading more about the crime they claim a “breakthrough” in disbelieving her story came after a lie detector test proved her recollection of the supposed carjacking had a problem with reality. Which is stupid. Again: people don’t remember stuff all that well, esp. under stress.
Even honest, open people aren’t going to get things all right. Which is a reason why lie detectors are far from perfect.
I’d guess that it is remotely possible.
It certainly could not have been a light burning for the full time: even a small one, even on dry land would drain a battery in less than 9 days.
But fresh water is a rather poor conductor of electricity, so the battery could have retained some capacity for that time. And the action of pulling the car out of water might have moved a door and caused the interior dome light to come on.
I’ll agree that a more probable explanation may be that the police officer is conflating this with another case of retrieving a sunken car.
yeah. they could stay lit underwater; the headlamps are (or should be) sealed, and the running lights and taillights- while not sealed- should stay lit so long as the thermal shock doesn’t break the bulb.
but lights staying on for 9 days? nope. a car battery is about 45-60 amp-hours, and your typical halogen bulb is 45 watts. Almost 4 amps each at 12 volts. if the headlamps were both on, the battery would run flat in about half a day.
We pulled out a quad that someone drive into the creek behind our firehouse. The quad had been submerged about 1 hour, the light was on and shining underwater and above as it was extracted, turning off when we turned off the ignition.
I’m going to say yes it is possible, however perhaps a relay or switch didn’t work underwater, or perhaps the ignitor on a HID light, but started working above water, turning the lights on again, as opposed them staying on the whole time. When we had that quad in the creek it was at night, and the headlight was obvious. However if it was during the day it may not have been obvious till it was extracted and went on,and people assumed it was on the whole time. The other way it may work is if it’s not a headlight, but perhaps a door light of glove box light, something of very low wattage could be on for that long.
Could he just have meant “the light switch was in the on position”? [website is blocked here]
PURE, distilled, water is an insulator, but it is doubtful that the water in question was pure enough to be an insulator.
But how good of a conductor will it be? Cars can have shorts to the frame and keep on running. A bulb will be dimmer close to the short but it doesn’t drain the battery in just minutes. Hours though? Yes. I had to pull the fuse on a convertible top mechanism until I found the hidden short. It would drain the battery overnight but there was no indication of a problem until the car wouldn’t start the next day.
The exact quote is “When we pulled that car out of that lake that night, the lights were still on. They were still burning,”
No, but it isn’t either/or. Water in a freshwater lake or stream isn’t perfectly pure, but it doesn’t have enough dissolved stuff to make it an easy conductor below a certain voltage. Salt water, on the other hand, is a markedly better conductor.
We also have to entertain the possibility that a 25 year old memory is faulty, or that there is a misunderstanding in communication to the journalist and into publication.
I think those are more likely scenarios, than a car battery keeping headlights properly lit and emitting photons for 9 days underwater.
Flood waters are notorious for ruining car’s electrical systems. With modern cars they are often unfixable without putting in ridiculous amounts of time and money.
The lake water would have been only slightly cleaner than flood water. It would conduct well enough to hasten the drain and completely muck up the electronics.
I read that the car in question was a 1990 Mazda Protege. not a heck of a lot of electronics in one of those; I’d bet dollars to donuts the lights were all on hard wired switches.
Which is the reason why historically, a policeman had a notebook.
This did, to a certain extent, shift the problem: mistakes made at the scene were very difficult to correct. But it was a recognition that even police memory was unreliable.
I don’t know why people stopped writing things down, but it certainly seems to be less common now than it was even 50 years ago. Who now habitually carries a notebook and a pencil?
Especially considering that even if you leave car headlights on overnight in a dry garage they won’t be working the next day. I’ve done it multiple times on every vehicle I’ve had that didn’t have an automatic shutoff.
I ran this down and may have found the answer, but the only source I came across doesn’t inspire confidence: it’s murderpedia.org. To wit:
(emphasis added)
If this is accurate, it explains how the cop in the OP could have observed lit headlights after nine days. It still sounds unlikely to me, but it sounds a lot more likely than the alternatives.
If anyone has a better or conflicting citation, I’d love to hear about it.