To think today’s article about Auriol Grey paint a very different picture

[HibiscusBlues]

I was sad to see articles today about the woman jailed for the death of a cyclist. At the time of the offence she was living in a home for the disabled. If this is the case my experience is places like that aren’t easily available.
Shes partially blind, has balance problems and cognitive difficulties after a birth injury to the brain. She’s had related brain surgery.
If this is the case, as her family’s appeal stated, then there does seem a disconnect with the judge saying no difficulties that impacted her actions. Accessing supported living yet being deemed able-bodied and cognitively normal by a court.
Obviously the incident was horrendous for the Ward family, and the cyclist need not deserve to die. It’s a sad case. However the handling of the case is starting to sound uncomfortable. What have others thought of the articles today?

She should not have been cycling at all

It’s a shared pathway. She had as much right to cycle as she did to walk.

One last time: IT WAS NOT A SHARED PATHWAY. The judge was simply wrong.

That is guesswork as much as anything that I have written. Do you know what "reasonable doubt" means?

It appears that the council and police were unable to locate the required record officially designating that stretch of path as a shared pathway.

Nonetheless, the signage in proximity appeared to indicate that is was a shared pathway and it has been used as such for decades without prior incident.

Celia Rhodes could not reasonably have known about the apparent gap in the local authorities’ record keeping.

I thought it was decided it was a shared path?

Even if it wasn't, the awful woman who caused the death of an innocent victim still deserves prison.

AND THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE

I HAVE SPOKEN

It wasn’t decided either way, as whether or not the path was properly designated as a shared path wasn’t ultimately of particular relevance.

The judge did opine that he thought it was a shared path, but it’s not a significant fact given that everyone in the area (AG included) know that it is routinely used as a shared path.

In any event, there’s every chance that AG would have been found guilty even if it was absolutely clear that it was not a shared path.

Its a bit of red herring.

To be fair, they came right up to each other by dint of neither adjusting their trajectory at all. I don't think the phrase coming right up to someone is the right one - it suggests she stormed up to someone who was leaving her alone when all she did in terms of walking was keep going. I do think it was probably impossible for her to step aside in the time frame and she might well have been injured of she'd let events take their course.

The status of the pathway is irrelevant.

You can't kill people for doing slightly wrong things. Like if I come home and someone's trespassing in my garden, I don't just knock em off

do think it was probably impossible for her to step aside in the time frame and she might well have been injured of she'd let events take their course.
What on earth are you talking about? Celia was half way past AG when AG either swung for, or pushed, Celia.

There was zero prospect of a collision, it was an assault.

How many threads have we had on AG now? It really doesn't matter whether you think Celia shouldn't have been cycling on athe shared path pavement, whether AG shouldn't be in prison, others have lenient sentences etc.

The judge and jury have decided, with all the evidence and facts presented to them, that she is guilty of manslaughter.

There are several lives ruined including her own because of what she did.

it suggests she stormed up to someone who was leaving her alone

That is exactly what she did, while swatting at her. If you make contact while lashing at someone and send them falling into a road, you got too close.

Your victim blaming is really quite offensive.

A jury heard all of the evidence presented by both sides and unanimously decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that AG was guilty of manslaughter. But somehow you know better? Wow. You could really do something special with those powers, what are you doing on Mumsnet?

Yes, it’s the standard by which Auriol Grey was convicted, and it’s easy to understand why given the extremely strong evidence against her that was undisputed in court.

Its completely nuts isn’t it?

We have a video which shows the assault.
An independent witness saw the assault.
A jury convicted Auriol Grey of manslaughter on the basis of the assault.
Auriol Grey’s legal team has not appealed the conviction.

But Freddie off the internet somehow knows better.

Here you go. All within a minutes walk of where Celia Ward was killed.

It might not be a problem with record keeping, it could be that the signs were wrongly erected. Used to work in police admin and have had to sort out paperwork where people got speeding or parking fines when they challenged it and it was found the signage was the problem. Particularly likely if the signage wasn't clear.

Within a minutes walk doesn't necessarily mean it applied to where she was, of course it could but it isn't a given. I could park on double yellow lines that are inches away from a legal parking space but I'd still get done for parking on them.

It can't have been that strong if they couldn't reach a decision in the first trial.

It seems quite a strange case really.

It does. I live here. It’s a shared path. Everyone who lives here knows it is. It’s a ring road and the pavements on both sides of its entire periphery are shared paths.

I can't be the only person wondering why there seems to be such a concerted effort to convince people that AG is innocent?

The thought has crossed my mind. There’s been some extreme gaslighting attempts over the various threads (including somebody insisting that the video clearly shows that Celia lost control of her bike and fell into the road before she was anywhere near Auriol, and Auriol merely turned to look at her, post-fall).

But I think it’s most likely shoddy/irresponsible journalism that has whipped people up. So much of the coverage reports that Auriol was jailed for ‘gesturing’ at a cyclist. It’s easy to see why people would be perplexed at the decision having only read about it in the rags.

It's because of hatred for cyclists combined with ignorance of the Highway Code. Same reason some people were willfully hallucinating Dan Walker weaving about all over a roundabout whilst invisible before maliciously throwing himself under a car the other week, despite clear video evidence that's not what happened at all.

I didn't see any violence from AG. Her actions were a defensive reaction to someone endangering her.

Some people truly believe it.

Some people are exploiting the incident to satisfy their self-image as superior beings.

Some are clearly on a wind up.