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?

So why wasn't it determined in court that it was a shared pathway? Were the signs actually there when this happened or are they more recent?

Google Earth says differently. The sign was not there at the time of the accident in 2020.

https://www.cambsnews.co.uk/news/huntingdon-sign-doubt-raises-question-mark-over-manslaughter-verdict/8173/

I am concerned that Auriol Grey has been convicted on the basis that she used the F-word. The same word that a well know Man City player used yesterday on live TV!

Sea Lioning

"The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate" so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable. It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"

🙄

On the police video before the killing miss grey clearly sees cyclist coming first shouting at her then waving her hands at her making her fall on to road [manslaughter} she then goes on shopping then lies to police numours times In interview believe jail time is to short what if this was a kid coming home from school on a bike would she acted in same manner I'd say yeah

Reasonable self defense by AG and poor bicycle control by CW. No way were AG's actions out of proportion to the risk caused by CW's recklessness.

You do make me laugh.

(not that the event is anything to laugh about, it's horrific. CW's death penalty for the 'crime' of cycling next to a pedestrian is heinous, and the AG has not been unfairly punished. It's just that specific post, thinking the 'self-defense' was reasonable, is entirely laughable).

Sorry if you disagree but AG did not ask CW to cycle recklessly towards her with poor control next to a busy road. AG's actions were reasonable and the law even allows leeway beyond that because it is accepted that in the moment it is impossible to judge the exact force needed for defence. I maintain that the force used (if any) was proportionate given the recklessness of the cyclist who clearly had poor control of her bicycle.

😂

You're clearly on the glue.

View of an eminent legal commentator

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years

He quotes the full sentencing remarks.

What struck me most about the judge’s remarks is the account from the witness who said that both AG and the cyclist had come to a halt, when AG made a sweeping motion towards the cyclist, who either was hit by AG or recoiled and fell off.

An elderly woman who is stationary on her bike - how could she be either a danger to AG or an incompetent cyclist who fell off while riding her bike?

An elderly woman who is stationary on her bike - how could she be either a danger to AG or an incompetent cyclist who fell off while riding her bike?

Indeed. It's incredibly offensive - disgusting even - that someone on this thread seems to want to paint the entirely innocent victim as being at fault.

I'm sure they're posting what they're posting purely to get a reaction.

What struck me is how biased it was. The cyclist did not stop, slow down or move to the correct side either. The cyclist was just as territorial as AG if not more so.

The next thing was the witness William Walker could not have seen the incident very well and/or has poor eyesight or memory. Mrs Ward does not come to a halt in the CCTV nor does AG make a lateral sweeping movement. Or is it the case that Mrd Ward was going very fast beforehand so what we see in the video looks like she has come to a halt. It is a mystery.

The final thing is that the judge says "I think" it was a shared path. Oh well I suppose it must have been then if the judge thinks that it was. Who needs road signs when we can ask the judge?

So you know better than the actual eye witness, @Freddie1964? And the judge?

The arrogance is stunning.

And the Court of Appeal Judges and Auriol’s own lawyers who decided not to appeal her conviction.

You can call me anything you want but the CCTV does not show Mrs Ward coming to a halt.

I do not mean to be arrogant. I am just challenging the evidence and the statements made by the judge where I see inconsistencies, bias and falsehoods. That is what court cases are all about! They should stand up to scrutiny.

It’s a sad case of events and I originally thought Auroil might’ve been treated unfairly but having heard what the witness said I understand why Aurioil wasn’t allowed to appeal. I did read a bit about Auriol’s disability, character etc and I think sadly in this case she’s behaved as though she was in the right and she wasn’t in the right. She knew what she’d done was wrong and had fatally injured Mrs Ward which was why she vanished to go shopping and not take the blame for her actions. As others have said, even if she was guilty had she stayed she still would’ve got a conviction but not as long as she did get. I do wonder about the healthcare professionals dealing with her, did anyone see this sort of behaviour before?

Please stop the misinformation. Auriol was allowed to appeal but she chose not to. She did appeal the sentence though.

Her application for leave to appeal was denied.

I'm other words 'she wasn't allowed to appeal'. It is utterly clear that the previous poster was talking about that. No misinformation as far as I can tell.

@AnnoyedFromSlough - yes I was talking about that.