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?

@ancientgran Despite now having a diagnosis of autism the appeal to reduce the prison sentence for Auriol Grey has been dismissed. This tragic accident which has had a devastating affect on two families could have been avoided had Auriol Grey's autism been diagnosed.

@bellabasset it could have been avoided if AG wasn't an aggressive horrible spiteful person. This wasn't an accident. Glad they've kept to the sentence. It's not even harsh enough.

It wasn't an accident. The fact that it had unintended consequences doesn't make the series of events accidental.

How precisely would a diagnosis have made any difference?

Excellent news. Should have been longer.

Regardless of your views on cyclists on the pavements, it isn’t a crime that deserves death, is it.

@bellabasset having a diagnosis of autism doesn't mean you have carte Blanche to do what you like. I have children with a diagnosis.... they know not to push an old dear into incoming traffic!

This. A diagnosis of autism wouldn’t (and shouldn’t as most people with autism don’t cause deaths and are perfectly capable of living alone) have resulted in her being locked up in a mental hospital or given 24 hour carers - she’d still have been out at best screaming at the victim while flailing her arms wildly and making contact (what was proved in the trial).

Have to call out your misinformation. There was no screaming just an assertive call. There were no flailing arms, Auriol cannot move her right arm at all and made a harmless wave with her left arm. It was not proved that there was any contact or who was responsible for any contact. The cyclist was unstable, inconsiderate and a bit reckless in truth. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the pavement if it is accepted that it was a shared path. However, it was not determined whether it was a shared path or not so by default it was not. A disgusting verdict.

made a harmless wave with her left arm.

By which you mean the alternative definition of "harmless", as in "results in death".

Lovely bit of victim blaming there. It was a disgusting sentence, she should have got ten years.

Oh hang on. Just flipped back through the thread and I remember our friend Freddie.

Don't give him what he clearly wants.

@Freddie1964 you are the one spouting misinformation and spin. The contact was seen in court.
She deserves her sentence and hopefully she will spend her time considering her behaviour toward others.

@Freddie1964 you are the one spouting misinformation and spin.

He knows.

Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. All wrong. Oh and she admitted contact.

Also, even her own solicitors / barristers have accepted there is no basis on which to challenge the court’s decision on guilt - the appeal was against sentence not conviction.

99.9% of cyclists would not have lost control. The cyclist attempted a manoeuvre that was too hard for her to execute. It is wrong to blame the pedestrian.

She fucking pushed her! 100% of cyclists would lose control when pushed. The verdict was never in contention in any case.

FOF

She was in a residential home for the disabled before a decision was taken to transfer her to a self contained flat run by the same disability charity. Perhaps consideration should be given as to the reasons for that decision, because in hindsight it would appear to be wrong. I know this thread is a couple of months old but I’m still gobsmacked at the amount of people who don’t understand that living in a residential home for the disabled doesn’t automatically mean they are not allowed out alone - it’s illegal to curtail someone’s freedom in this way unless they have lost capacity. That said, had she still been in the residential home, the incidents leading up to this tragedy would have come to their attention and something would have been put in place to ensure she wasn’t regularly causing public nuisance.

AG's innocence is not related to her disabilities. The cyclist's accident was self-inflicted. AG was walking on the pavement. If a cyclist passed by so close that there was a possibility of contact then the cyclist was either out of control or reckless or both. There is no requirement for a pedestrian to get out of the way of a cyclist and it is ridiculous to expect the pedestrian to be completely passive and oblivious to a near collision with a cyclist.

I have watched the video, @Freddie1964 , and AG moves from the inside edge of the pavement, into the path of the cyclist. If she had carried on walking along the inside edge of the pavement, she would have been nowhere near the cyclist. She put herself into a more hazardous position.

According to the evidence, she then either hit or pushed the cyclist, knocking her under the wheels of a car.

Can you please explain why cycling on the pavement means that the cyclist deserved to die? Because that is what you are implying.

Spotted a typo there, let me help you.

I think you meant to say: “AG’s guilt is not related to her disabilities.”

That’s where you most likely intended your post to end - that would make most sense.

Hope that helps!

Firstly the cyclist is not in the video so you don't know what line she was taking. AG walks in a pretty straight line for someone with multiple disabilities and it is not unlawful to walk in a slightly curved line! The evidence from the eye witness was that AG made a swipe and the stationary cyclist lost control. No hitting, no pushing, no certainty of contact. Read the trial record! I am not saying that the cyclist deserved to die. I am just saying that AG was not responsible for her death.