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?

@Freddie1964
”People shout and swear the whole time. You cannot lock people up for doing that. AG has multiple disabilities and was gesturing with her good arm. The cyclist went far too close to her and was responsible for any contact. It is perfectly OK to put your arm out to defend yourself.”

lol, what bollocks some people talk 🤣

Don't give him what he wants. That goes for all of you.

I think it is a travesty she was interviewed without legal counsel present. It allowed them to make mincemeat of her. Another example of how she should have had adequate advocacy taking into account her inability to see the need to say no comment as someone able bodied probably would have done.

I don’t understand how anybody can honestly say AG was startled. She plainly saw Celia approaching for some time for Celia passed, and was angrily shouting and swearing for several seconds before she turned towards, and swung at, Celia.

Luckily the jury could plainly, unanimously, see that any sort of ‘self defence’ argument was a total nonsense, even in the context of Auriol’s disabilities.

Also, Celia's relatives should be taking legal action against the council re their failure to provide clarity on who was allowed to be there. That's the confusion that led to A feeling at risk and Celia being in a position where she could collide with a pedestrian. Personally, I would ride my bike on a pavement where a pedestrian might be at all because it's obvious this could happen.

wouldn't

If bicycles were banned, this wouldn't have happened! If Grey had been chained to the wall in her home, this wouldn't have happened! If we had hoverboards by now, this wouldn't have happened! If Mrs Ward had been skateboarding in the park, this wouldn't have happened! In an alternate universe somewhere, this didn't happen!

It did happen. And it happened as a direct consequence of Grey's unlawful action.

I suspect quite a few pedestrians have jumped out of the way in the past to be honest.

If only judges came down half as hard on rapists and wife beaters. I guess they have the wit to commit their offences in secret and say no comment.

Aka the "it didn't happen BUT I BET IT DID" line of argument.

I agree that it was wrong but I thought that she did well in the interview. Honest. open, not evasi

not evasive. The accident was not her fault. It is always the duty of the cyclist to deescalate any possible conflict by giving priority to the pedestrian. It is not hard but cyclists often do not do it.

I perceived that AG moved to centre of path so she could remonstrate with CW. Waving arms at CW was AG's priority in the moment.

The cyclist's front wheel passes AG's foot at a distance of about one foot. This gives zero clearance at torso level whatever their arms and handlebars are doing. That is why there might be light contact and that is why the cyclist is startled and loses control.

@Markasread as long as you say so then.

You are making excuses because she doesn't fit into the narrative of what a disabled person should be/ look like. I actually think you are doing her a disservice by making excuses for her under the guise of her disability. Does they mean she has no perception of right or wrong? That she gets a free pass? This was all discussed in her second trial and the CPS released further footage to show why they prosecuted her.

She was 'callous' what with her pushing someone into moving traffic and causing her death.

There was no push. Any push is an illusion or imaginary. The CCTV is in the exact wrong angle to detect whether there was a push and the prosecution did not attempt to prove that there was a push. The most they had evidence for was some kind of swipe that may have made contact. It is not clear whether the court considered how unstable the small wheeled electrically assisted bike would have been at low speed on the poor surface.

It looks a lot like a push but I agree it is not provable. Fortunately, the prosecution did not need to prove a push so I doubt they even attempted to.

Agreed. But without a push what exactly has AG done wrong? She is really just an inanimate object or obstacle that the cyclist has failed to manoeuvre past.

It doesn’t look like a push. It looks like a sweeping gesture of the arm which may or may not have made contact. V different

An inanimate object that swore, shouted and waved her arms.

Swung her arm at Celia, which either made sufficient contact to cause Celia to fall into the road or which caused Celia to recoil - either of which is common assault (particularly when paired with the shouting and swearing).

Common assault is an unlawful act and, where an unlawful act leads to someone’s death, that’s manslaughter.

This is getting weird now. All this hand wringing over someone losing their liberty for a merge 3 years for manslaughter.
Auriol Grey is not the victim here.... Celia Ward is.
Unless you were there in court and saw all of the CCTV and all of the evidence, then no one can say with any certainly what did or did not happen.
This armchair detective stuff that happens on MN is tiresome.

Let Celia rest in peace, for goodness sake.

Either of our interpretations amount to the same crime, but I do disagree. Slowed down frame by frame it looks a heck of a lot like a push and it’s clear that the moment Celia suddenly loses control is the same moment that AG’s hand appears to make contact with Celia’s arm.

Now AG is reduced to being an 'inanimate object', talk about disablism!

And it's very clear from the video that she was anything but 'inanimate' - it was the very fact that she was highly animated that caused Celia's death, which has rightly resulted in a conviction.

OK folks. Thanks for the discussion. I still think that we are dealing with very fine margins and judgements here. We are back at square one where waving your arm at someone who is getting a lot closer to you than they should be is unlawful. I don't know how the jury made sense of it and note that the first jury could not.