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?

Just imagine writing something so misinformed and heartless.

Bluekerfuffle
So what was the country designed for then?

I am not sure that people realise that if they are right and AG couldn’t have controlled herself, was so scared she becomes aggressive to strangers she perceives as a danger, when they aren’t. Approaches people in an aggressive manner (and she did approach), Believes she is allowed to be aggressive and threatening to people she perceived as wrong then she still may not have been deemed able to go back to her supported living and carry on living as she did before.

If she is known danger to people, that she believes are wrong, plans will need to be put in place so she isn’t out alone.

If her sight problems mean she feels extremely vulnerable and that makes her aggressive, the outcome wouldn’t be ‘ah just let her carry on’.

I am not sure prison is the right place for her. But I also don’t think she can be allowed to carry on as she was. Wether that means she has to be supervised at all times or something else, I don’t know. But depending on her supported living it maybe that she couldn’t stay there anyway.

I also agree that if it had been a child she had done this to, she would have very little support.

I don't understand why there's so many people defending her, she admitted to touching the cyclist in court.

If you mean the article in todays Sunday Times, I totally agree based on what's been said. Yes it was sad that the cyclist was killed but the judge seems to have completely ignored that her balance was impaired, her sight was poor and yes she told the cyclist to get off the pavement but neither the council nor the police can confirm it is a dual cycling and pavement path but the judge just assumed it was. Her lack of empathy was criticised by the judge but apparently is normal for her given her brain injury.

Let's not forget the cyclist should have dismounted and walked past her so contributed to the accident. This poor women is locked up but doesn't seem to understand and seems to think she's staying in prison before going home. Numerous disability charities have criticised the judge. Surely a suspended sentence was in order?

I think the judge needed to be more specialist in cases dealing with people with disabilities…if there is such a judge

Given some misinformation in this thread, no doubt as a result of the one-sided Mail article, I would encourage those who think the conviction and sentencing wrong to read the sentencing remarks:

I honestly just can’t wrap my head around those claiming she was the more vulnerable path user, and was just so afraid of the cyclist etc.
Surely if this was the case she would have moved to the right? Instead she made a beeline directly towards the cyclist! It just doesn’t ring true with reality.

She admitted to contact. She pushed her to her death then walked off to go shopping as she lay dying. She also lied to the police. She's a murderer and she should have got a lot longer. There's already a thread on this OP. Why make another?!

Does anyone know if an expert witness was called regarding how AG disabilities impact her?

@AlwaysGinPlease
rhats not what video evidence shows though

dont like another thread, don’t comment on it 🤷🏻‍♀️

Oh yes, I forgot that she lied to the police until they told her that she'd been recorded on CCTV.

Agree. Also actual clarification of whether it is a 'shared space' or not should definitely have happened. In my nearest big town shared paths are cleared marked with half cycle half pedestrian. This was absolutely not.

Auriol should not be in prison, it's a tragedy all round

@holachicas you won't see the full video. It's too horrific. Don't like my post? Don't comment on it.

I assume the Appeal has a jury, haven’t looked. They’ll have to find people not too influenced by media and with preconceived ideas of guilty or not.

Looking at this thread many decide already without court and evidence

I agree.

My understanding is that Grey insists she has full cognitive capacity. She is would be insulted by this thread implying she lacks that.

A tragic accident. Nothing more. What followed was a complete waste of public funds by the prosecution and trial.

The video clearly showed AG did not touch the cyclist.

It's fact that she acted aggressively, swore, caused the poor victim to die, she also lied, she even went shopping afterwards! She deserves prison and there's no excuse whatsoever for her awful behaviour. The justice system deemed her guilty thank goodness.

Having worked as a nominated appropriate adult I can say they err on the side of caution if there's even a hint it might be needed. It means the evidence isn't invalidated down the line so this alone doesn't really mean anything.

Tbh if she's been assessed by the court as able to understand and take responsibility I'm not sure all the armchair judges at home can decide better. Especially if it was a shared pavement then sadly I think she was in the wrong.

And if she truly isn't able to be out and about without causing risk to others then that's a failure of adult social care which is not at all out of the realm of possibilities

Ag said she did make contact.

and a witness described her as swotting her arms at the cyclist. She was trying to force the cyclist onto a busy road, which is very dangerous.

She does not know how to show emotions and how impaired her cognitive ability is. She's innocent by her mental incapability.

Please watch the video and judge yourself.

I just do not understand why people are defending her! The video clearly shows her retracting her hand, her shoulder lifting as she turns her whole body, her body jerks and her arm appears to the left and in that moment the poor cyclist (whose wheels were fully straight at that point) immediately veers into the road. Everyone focuses too much on the gesturing. Watch AFTER the gesturing. She admitted in interview she touched her "lightly". Clearly not

That's what I don't understand, the highway code says the most vulnerable user should have priority.