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?

Yes you could say this about any crime. Such odd views around this crime.

I watched the video again, I can’t see her walking diagonally or storming up to the cyclist. She swears, she’s flapping her arms and it’s nice… but her path looks straight enough. She’s reported to always walk with the kerb close to her left, she can’t see in her right side.

Disabled but not too disabled. Ugh.

But why are you unwilling to accept that she may well have been (and almost certainly was) alarmed about being hit? That is the list likely explanation for anyone having a problem with a bike barrelling merrily towards them, even more so if you can't jump out of the way. Why aren't you willing to look at the situation from her perspective?

AG's perspective is that it was more important to get close to the cyclist to wave her arms at cyclist, than to move 18-24" to her right & maximise space between herself & the cyclist. I'll grant AG could have been motivated by fear, so much so that she lashed out rather than seek distance.

A lot of people are unwilling to look at the situation from her perspective because Cyclists Are Always Right.

The cyclist is not included in the CCTV until the last seconds so we don't know what she was doing before that. We cannot say that CW walked into her path or whether the cyclist moved into CW's path. The cyclist is on the wrong side. The pedestrian has priority so the cyclist should stop.

Problem I have is every time I look at things in this case I see questions.

Questions over whether the shared path was well implemented.
Questions over the nature of the interaction between the cyclist and the pedestrian.
Questions over the witness statement.
Questions over how the defendants disabilities were taken/not taken into account, in the interaction, in the interview process and in the sentencing.

Most people talk about this as if it were a black and white case.

It surely isn't. If it were, then why would have it required two trials ? Why can people argue about the details over hundreds of posts and not come to a convincing conclusion (or at least from my perspective I don't see anything that convinces me) ? To me there is no certainty here, or for that matter anything close to approaching it.

To me it's definitely worth re-examining the whole case in some detail. Because surely the point of the exercise is to try to understand what happened, ensure justice is served, and stop the tragedy happening again.

I'm not claiming to know the extent of her disabilities like some on here but if it was the Ace that some people think it was why wasn't it definitively shown in court? Do you really think such an obvious defense would have passed by her counsel who specialise in dealing with cases with vulnerable defendants? When I give my opinions on this case I'm giving it on what we know about it, not what I'm imagining.

I don't really care whether she goes to prison specifically or not but you can't have someone of any level of capacity, who might just hoik another valid pavement user into the street, walking round.

I don't understand (other than cynically) why this case generates the interest it does when the literal bread and butter of our court system is the locking away of unfortunates with at best questionable decision making ability though. I've never seen, for what's a relatively small story, a topic generate this many threads and replies

Not at all what anyone is saying. That cyclist was also vulnerable and died as a result of someone else's actions. If it was your Mum who'd been forced into the road and left dying there, I imagine you'd have a different view.
The issue here is that Auriol acted like an angry person - agressively swearing, waving her arms about and then pushing someone into the road. That's not how people behave when intimidated and afraid.
The judge and jurors clearly thought that her cognitive ability was enough that she understood right from wrong and the consequences of her actions. Manslaughter is correct.

Probably because for some people, it doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to believe that a disabled person might be treated inappropriately by the system.

I agree that people who present a clear danger to other people in public shouldn't be allowed out in public. There is a question over where they belong, in a prison, or in some sort of other facility.

For me, people should take more interest in potential miscarriages of justice and should be encouraged to do so. That's one pretty powerful way in which the justice system is audited. It exists to serve the public, in the public interest. If it is not doing that, then we need to campaign to change it.

The issue here is that Auriol acted like an angry person - agressively swearing, waving her arms about and then pushing someone into the road. That's not how people behave when intimidated and afraid

You have no idea how people with brain damage act when they are intimidated and afraid. People without brain damage often do in fact seem angry when they are intimidated and afraid.

With people like you on the jury, of course her issues were not properly evaluated and considered.

Clueless.

Completely agree.

The cyclist was not forced into the road or pushed. The cyclist lost control of her bicycle after a near miss with a pedestrian. She should not have cycled so close.

The Brexiters want an end to bike lanes. Thats their next project.

Don't talk such utter rot.

And that's part of my point, no one on here is going to campaign to change anything and condensing the overall topic to one single case feels very harsh on the actual victim in this instance.

Prisons are full of people who are inadequately equipped one way or the other. Like it or not, this is how people are dealt with every day of the week.

https://www.ukip.org/ukip-policies/policy-transport

@Freddie1964

You are 100% WRONG. Auriol was walking on the SHARED path, (for pedestrians AND cyclists to use,) she saw the cyclist (Celia,) she edged towards her, she shouted at her to 'get off the fucking path,' and she lashed her arm out and struck her, causing her to tumble into the path of a moving car. Resulting in Celia's DEATH.

The jury and the courts stated this, they have officially convicted her based on CONCRETE EVIDENCE and video footage, and Auriol HERSELF said she lashed out her arm at the cyclist. Get your facts straight before you post in future, because you are making yourself look very silly posting nonsense like you have posted there. ^

Auriol caused someone's DEATH. Stop trying to blame the victim. It's sickening.

You have no idea how people with brain damage act when they are intimidated and afraid

And you have no idea if that applies to her or not

Yep this. ^ Auriol Grey was not 'intimidated' or 'afraid.'

It's worrying to see how many people on this thread are so adamant about what happened and why it happened. I'm glad they weren't on the jury. I'd not want to be judged by people so lacking in balanced thoughts.
It's a difficult case and it's impossible to know for sure exactly what was going on.
I'm happier to accept the judges version than some of the posters on here. It seems a harsh punishment in some ways but someone did die so maybe it's fair.
Why people continually refer to the cyclist being pushed into the road is nuts though. If that was the case the Judge would have said so.

Stop trying to blame the victim.

I agree generally with post and this specifically

Poor mental health is exceptionally common in prison. 45% of adults in prison have anxiety or depression, 8% have a diagnosis of psychosis, and 60% have experienced a traumatic brain injury.

And this is an ongoing and decades long issue and there's never even been 1000 posts on it never mind the several full threads we've had on this specific topic, which seems weird when everyone is obviously so concerned for justice

Who is behind this "Auriol is Innocent" campaign? Daily Mail? Anti cycling brigade? UKIP?