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?

I am grateful that scroll buttons exist.

Thank goodness the court didn't agree with you.

Sadly for you, the jury disagreed and Auriol’s lawyers have decided not to challenge that verdict.

Auriol is therefore now legally responsible for causing Celia’s death. It’s no longer speculation or just the prosecution case, it’s a legal fact.

Yes I know that. I think that the jury were wrong. It does happen!
Also remember that this was a retrial. The jury in the first trial could not reach a verdict. It seems pretty dodgy to me to have a second trial when the first jury had doubts.

There being a second trial after the jury fails to reach a decision in the first trial happens more often than you imagine, I'd love you to explain why in legal terms that second trials are 'dodgy'.

Honestly, I remember you from a few months ago and you quite clearly have not taken any of the comments that you received on board.

How often does it happen? Why am I not allowed to consider that the prosecution should not get a second chance to prove their case if it is so obvious to everyone?
I am concerned that there may be bullies on the jury that cannot see another point of view, such as some people on this thread.

But it isn't so obvious is it? It only appears to be so obvious to yourself, the person who labels other posters and members of the jury who think differently as 'bullies'.

Catch a grip mate.

My bigger concern would be people on the jury that refuse to acknowledge the evidence and twist things to suit their own narrative.

I meant that if AG's guilt was so obvious and there was no doubt, then why did it need a second trial? Surely that is a valid question.

I would be concerned about whether the jury have enough experience of cycling to know what controlling your bike means.

The cyclist is on a small wheeled bicycle travelling at a low speed using throttle only electric power. She is not pedalling. This is intrinsically unstable and it would be difficult for a 77 year old to manoeuvre. She has no helmet and bizarrely has a shoulder bag over one shoulder. She cycled within inches of a pedestrian. IMO the manhole cover could have been enough to cause her to lose control.

It is the jury's job to stress test the prosecution case!

Do you know she's using throttle? It's very unlikely that an elderly cyclist has gone out of her way to get hold of a bike that's illegal in the UK.

It's much more likely that she was not pedalling because she felt she needed to slow down because a pedestrian was behaving erratically.

I think maybe you don't know enough about cycling.

It was a pedal bike you genius.

i can’t understand the vitriol you’re getting from other posters. I completely agree with you. It was an appalling verdict that has given cyclists - who already flout the rules regularly - license to behave with even more recklessness.

Of course it wasn't "an appalling verdict". 🙄

The verdict was 'guilty' due to the overwhelming evidence against the killer.

What is appalling is the ridiculously short sentence for such an abhorrent crime.

@SoupedUpSue - if the verdict had gone the other way, one could argue that pedestrians would feel they had licence to push cyclists under cars, for the crime of cycling on the pavement.

I agree that cycling on the pavement is wrong and dangerous for adults, but I do not think it deserves a painful death under the wheels of a car. There are no winners in this case, but a woman was killed, and that does require justice, for her and for her family.

Twist and Go bikes can have a throttle only mode up to 6km/h legally in the UK. They are designed to give cyclists help getting started. However, it is true that I don't know for sure whether it was such a bike. It just looked like one to me. Sorry if I am mistaken.

If I am wrong then I am sorry. It is hard to tell from the video.

Thank you Sue.

It was appalling. Cyclists are quite capable of having accidents and falling off their bikes with no pedestrians around. Just because the cyclist lost control does not mean that the pedestrian did anything wrong.

There was no almost certainly no push and 100% certainly no proof of a push.

If cycling on the pavement is wrong and dangerous why did the judge state the the cyclist was blameless? The judge seemed to take a dislike to AG and was not impartial. Stating that the pavement was a shared cycleway which is untrue is another example.

Do puppets wear socks? I didn't they did, asking for a friend.

For the nine millionth time - it is a shared pathway. Here are the signs.