Minnesota semi driver wanted in I-90 fatality

Apparently it was dusk or nighttime. They used a flashlight . His behavior indicates the suspect did not know who or what he hit. You could also argue it was not fatal when he left .
Was he the guy? Most likely. There is no direct evidence. Just hearsay and a damage putting him in the same timeframe and vicinity of the accident. I think he just snoozed and then it was too late. Also people begin seeing things when they are asleep. Noone can say now with 100 percent certainty if he was the guy who did it. All detectives have left to play with is emotions and an image of a dangerous uncaring trucker

 

How in the world do you draw conclusions like that?
You say "You could argue is was not fatal when he left"? First of all the 81 yr old pedestrian victim was struck by a semi. Hardly a chance it was "not fatal" at that moment.
Furthermore, the co-driver said that the driver kept shouting "I just hit somebody". They knocked the headlight off the truck and likely other damage. They saw clothes and duffel bag scattered in the left lane when they went back. And you question if this is truly the guy? No direct evidence? What do you call the truck damage and the co-driver's testimony?

You also have quite a bit of wild assumptions, not based on any facts whatsoever. And you think it's mainly hearsay evidence?
Sorry to inform you, but it is highly probable detectives have quite a bit more evidence "to work with" than you think .
It's also quite possible the deceased DNA will be found somewhere on that truck, even after the 1 month time delay.
I'll say this... Don't ever quit your day job to investigate hit & run fatalities.

 

If they find DNA then I'll say he is guilty. Till then it is just a chain of coincidences to me. What is the big deal with taking out a headlight? The suspect might have just hit the bag of the guy with an old school alarm clock inside. The victim returned back to his car to get another bag to pick up his clothes, that's why they could not find the guy when the truckers turned around. When the victim came back to pick up his possessions he was hit by a lightning right in his left temple twice in a row and then run over by a school bus, a small crane, and then slightly mangled by a bear. He was still alive but had a heart attack. Then the car from the car wash came by...
Its not wild assumptions, is called reasonable doubt, plausible defense.
I'll say this don't quit your job if you have one either because if you had your way he'd already be in an electric chair, lol

 

So you figure it's a possibility that Welk (CRST driver) just hit the deceased's duffel bag with a hard object (old school alarm clock), and that knocked his headlight assembly. Talk about completely unrealistic "off-the-wall" logic. What are the chances that clothes bag was 3' tall (matching headlight height)? What are the chances the victim left that 3' high clothes bag in a lane of traffic unattended? Answer to both is effectively "ZERO".

From the police affidavit, the statement by Karls (the co-driver): "Welk was yelling and hollering and said, “I just hit someone".
Notice the word "someone". Not something. Not bag. Not deer. Not hawk (as he told his repair shop).
Also the co-driver stated: "Welk did not seem to be the same after the accident” — nervous and upset, according to court documents.

So you have the driver admitting to hitting someONE, and his demeanor following the incident is highly indicative of him hitting someONE, rather than a simple collision with a object of little value (such as only the clothes bag, as you suggest). As for "reasonable doubt",, the fact is, even a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence can successfully convict a person. You do not need to have the victim's body parts embedded in the grill to show 100% guilt, as it seems you'd like to believe.

No, I'm far from putting Welk in the electric chair... yet. But I can assure you by the time they made the arrest, and by the time he goes to trial, he had or will have sufficient evidence against him for a conviction. Note that all evidence gathered rarely makes the newspapers.
BTW, in court, for anyone, it's "Beyond a reasonable doubt", not "Beyond all doubt". Just so you know.

 

It wasnt an alarm clock my good sir...it was a grandfather clock.Thats the only thing I could see thats a clock and wipe out a whole headlight assembly. Maybe the 'duffel bag' was actualy the victim and the driver just hoped and tryed to convince him self it was a duffel bag.

 

So if he was walking on the shoulder why was the left headlight replaced?

 

He did cross the road at one point, at minimum.
His vehicle was off the highway on the eastbound side, but the victim was struck on the westbound side.