To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

If this pavement on the edge of a busy road is supposed to be shared I think it is very dangerous. It may be 2 1/2 metres of that is true but even if that sounds wide looking here it really isn’t at all especially as the lamppost takes up some of the space at the point a second before the accident.

When two people pass each other here, one on a bicycle and one on foot, one of them is going to be on the kerb.

Don’t waste your time. The judge clearly doesn’t know anything and all this information is a complete fabrication by the legal teams clearly 🙄

I honestly am baffled with those who are investigating street view etc. and those who are against the judge’s and jury’s decision. Like all things mentioned on this thread haven’t been considered in court!

No, we can’t really tell. However the clips from
different angles that have been shown in court to the judge and jury did show more, clearly.

Try looking at it head on, as the perspective is deceiving from this footage due to the angle - there's plenty of images available or the street from the direction Celia was cycling from. There's enough space for three people walking abreast (even with the post), or two and an oncoming cyclist without touching or knocking into each other, albeit a touch snug.

The judges comments said it is 2.4m, so unless someone can prove otherwise, I'd say it's fair to say it's true.

I don't think anyone disagrees it isn't a massive space, but there's plenty for two people to pass side by side.

Natural curiosity. The council and the police apparently don't know the status of the path, so how is a random disabled woman meant to know?

But what business is it if yours what I show an interest in? And what are you doing here when the thread's got no more to do with you than it has to do with me?

Keep your beak out.

and what about your beak then?!

Natural curiosity, fine. But you’re arguing with someone who knows the area by looking up street view as your defence.

Shared use or not, still doesn’t give the right to act in such am aggressive manner does it? I mean, how many e-scooters are zooming around in areas they’re not supposed to? Many have passed close to DD and I just make sure to hold her hand and move out the way, I don’t act aggressive in any way, neither does anyone else.

And before you mention her disability, it was proven in court that she didn’t have any learning disabilities, they don’t take these things lightly you know and there’s a whole process.

I honestly am baffled with those who are investigating street view etc. and those who are against the judge’s and jury’s decision. Like all things mentioned on this thread haven’t been considered in court!

Not everyone is unquestioning of court decisions. The law does its best but there are plenty of mistakes made too.

It was reported that the police were not sure if it was a shared pavement so why shouldn’t someone here in this discussion look for markings?

It was reported too that the culprit had cognitive difficulties. The judge himself said she was childlike. Why shouldn’t people wonder if she didn’t have quite a few mental difficulties, which do not mean she is innocent, but do mean prison is not the best place for her, but that the judge was over ’black and white’ in his views. Judges do have different tendencies.

I remember a judge in the past said that a father, or stepfather, who raped an 8 year old little girl when his wife, her mother was pregnant, was “just a normal red-blooded man”. Another accused a raped hitchhiker of contributory negligence. Judges do sometimes misunderstand aspects of life.

Not all defence barristers are equal. The law is almost like a game of rhetoric.

Not all defence barristers are equal. The law is almost like a game of rhetoric.

I don't disagree with your comments about the differences in judges, but she wasn't poorly represented. Her defence barrister was a highly experienced KC with particular expertise in defending vulnerable witnesses in murder and manslaughter trials.

Not all defence barristers are equal.

Yeah most aren't as good as hers that's true.

and despite this she got sentenced to 3 years, if that's as much mitigation as your defense can actually offer that should tell you something

No. I was looking at Streetview because I wanted to know the facts after somebody posted pictures of 'shared user' signs on the road yesterday. The other poster then told me there were signs in a place I'd already looked at on Streetview, so I checked again and there are no signs, meaning they've been put up in the last 5 months, probably in response to this accident. I informed the other poster of this. The other poster then posted on a different thread implying (as she had previously) that these signs had been there for a long time.

I can't be bothered addressing your other points again but I will state again that I fully support a conviction and disability isn't an excuse but it can be a reason. My main comments today have been against invented scenarios that don't seem to have even been brought up in court, never mind proved.

What happened in the first trial? She has problems expressing her self, and so the family wanted a result, and the lawyers wanted the money so pushed her into saying she may have made contact in the second trial. The disabled are always shafted.

Some one alone with no family or money cannot afford the big guns, And every one becomes an expert on disabilities. And a person who never drives just thinks bikes belong on the roads.

The police and council don't know if its a shared path, and the signs are opposite for the other path. And the judge says it is a shared path, and he knows about her disability too.

And jury service you are told what not to take into consideration and later told to vote. I am not saying she was perfect far from it but I just don't feel that was a fair trial without emotions playing a part.

If you watch the footage very very closely at the end you will see it looks like she actually pushes the cyclist just off frame so yes.. prison time deserved

I forgot to add that I did not realise it happened in 2020, but it is still on going. So maybe the signs have been updated. I cannot know from google street view.
And I don't live there. and before some one says it I have no plans to travel.

I realise after the last case on here depending on the newspaper, things can get changed each time it is posted on the news. And ppl end up arguing because they read one item.

It does look like it yes. But CPS obviously weren't as confident as you that it proves that's what happened so that wasn't what she was prosecuted for. Presumably they've got experts that analyse things like that.

The other poster then posted on a different thread implying (as she had previously) that these signs had been there for a long time.

The only implication is in your head. I told you there are signs, which there are. I never mentioned timescale, other than to say that - signs or no signs - that’s been a shared use path for the thick end of 50 years.

Contact could be a sleeve that brushed against her. But to push is deliberate.

@BrigitteBond what wasn't what she was sentenced for? I never mentioned what she should or shouldn't have been sentenced for? She got sentenced for manslaughter which is exactly what she deserved.. her actions resulted in death and that is despicable

If they were 100% it was manslaughter why did they need a retrial?

What in the hell are you on about?

She literally did have the 'big guns'. She wasn't defended by some freshly called junior that didn't know murder from manslaughter, she was defended by a leading KC with expertise in defending vulnerable defendants on murder and manslaughter charges.

If you think criminal barristers are in it for the money you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about.

She said she made contact as part of her police interviews, which were shown as evidence. It wasn't suddenly new information she was pressured into giving.

If there had been any procedural discrepancies, an application would be made by her counsel on that basis. You're really stretching.

Sorry for being snappy with you.

Now, you keep saying that this path has been shared user for many years, despite there only being signs on the other side of the road. So, do you have any actual reason to believe that the path on that side of the road has ever been designated as shared user, or is it just a vague feeling because cyclists are in the habit of using the path illegally?

The situation of one pavement being signed but one not, but both being designated shared user would be just bizarre. Unsubstantiated claims by someone that the unsigned side is shared user when the local council isn't even prepared to state that are even more bizarre.

You telling me the some one on benefits gets the best lawyer's?

If they were 100% it was manslaughter why did they need a retrial?

It could have been any number of procedural things. You realise they don't just keep doing trials until they get a guilty verdict, right?

What happened in the first trial?

Where are you seeing this is a retrial? A few people have mentioned that now but I couldn't find any reporting

ofc I know that but still I wonder why.

www.5pb.co.uk/barristers/miranda-moore-kc you want to tell her she's not good enough to defend her?