Good old British Justice system?

Currently reading:
Good old British Justice system?

Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
4,829
Points
849
Location
Bucks
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-killed-elderly-couple-walking-arm-arm.html


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-31444556


On the phone for 18 minutes of a 20 minute drive.
Made 4 phone calls.
Claims it was on speakerphone.
Wasn't distracted, claims the old woman walked out in front of her and "came from nowhere". Seems a bit hard to believe when the road is straight & the old couple walked with sticks.
Claims she was doing 30mph (the limit on that straight bit of road)
Didn't even realise she'd driven OVER the old guy!
Denied being on the phone at the time of the crash - yet her own grandparents said they were talking to her at the time!


I'd love to know if the prosecution approached her phone provider for information regarding her speed? Or even if they scrutinised the car's computer system for information?
 
The great thing about reading the daily mail's take on anything is they can and will twist a story to say what ever they want.

If you'd bothered to search a little further afield you will have found that the elderly couple crossed the road behind a car moving towards the defendant, this obscured her view of the pedestrians and contributed to the accident.

Secondly it was dark and the couple were wearing dark clothes.


I'd love to know if the prosecution approached her phone provider for information regarding her speed? Or even if they scrutinised the car's computer system for information?

Yes they did speak to the phone provider and find out which cell sites she was accessing to make the calls, but this doesn't give info on the speed she was traveling at, it did however show her progress in her journey as she made each call and the evidence from this coincided with her claims she was stationary each time she made a call.

Police accident investigation experts confirmed from their calculations that her speed was almost exactly 30mph and that her braking distances and reaction times all confirmed that she had very little time to react and by the time she had reacted she had already hit them. I'm not sure what you think you can get out of a car's ecu? It's not a black box recording device.

Basically all the evidence presented all pointed toward the elderly couple walking out in front of her and her having little to no time to react and prevent the collision, on top of which the prosecution were unable to prove that she had been distracted by the phone calls in such a way that had contributed to the accident.

All in all the reason she was found to be innocent of causing death by dangerous driving is that it could not be proven that she was driving dangerously.

Though I do find it funny you only ever come on this forum now to post about your own outrage....... 5 months after the event in this case :rolleyes:
 
The great thing about reading the daily mail's take on anything is they can and will twist a story to say what ever they want.

If you'd bothered to search a little further afield you will have found that the elderly couple crossed the road behind a car moving towards the defendant, this obscured her view of the pedestrians and contributed to the accident.

Secondly it was dark and the couple were wearing dark clothes.




Yes they did speak to the phone provider and find out which cell sites she was accessing to make the calls, but this doesn't give info on the speed she was traveling at, it did however show her progress in her journey as she made each call and the evidence from this coincided with her claims she was stationary each time she made a call.

Police accident investigation experts confirmed from their calculations that her speed was almost exactly 30mph and that her braking distances and reaction times all confirmed that she had very little time to react and by the time she had reacted she had already hit them. I'm not sure what you think you can get out of a car's ecu? It's not a black box recording device.

Basically all the evidence presented all pointed toward the elderly couple walking out in front of her and her having little to no time to react and prevent the collision, on top of which the prosecution were unable to prove that she had been distracted by the phone calls in such a way that had contributed to the accident.

All in all the reason she was found to be innocent of causing death by dangerous driving is that it could not be proven that she was driving dangerously.

Though I do find it funny you only ever come on this forum now to post about your own outrage....... 5 months after the event in this case :rolleyes:
The story came up in a feed on a facebook page I subscribe to - hence 5 months after the event :rolleyes:

The car's body computer holds, for a short time, certain information which can be (and has been) used to determine how the vehicle was being driven. Info from mobile phone providers has also been used to determine speed in a few cases.
Also, whilst it may have been dark and the elderly couple might have been wearing dark clothing - I take it that the car's headlights were also operating?

And thanks for posting the links with all the evidence you found, it's proved really helpful, because all that comes up when I google this case is a few snippets from the mirror, mail, BBC, ITV and a few welsh papers - all reporting the same, limited, information.

And finally..."Though I do find it funny you only ever come on this forum now to post about your own outrage" I find it funny that I am so central to your life that you see fit to check up on my every visit to this site.
 
Last edited:
The story came up in a feed on a facebook page I subscribe to - hence 5 months after the event :rolleyes:

Oh that doesn't supprise me at all, it probably said "this woman knocked down and killed two elderly people and walked free, share and like if you think she should be in prison"

The car's body computer holds, for a short time, certain information which can be (and has been) used to determine how the vehicle was being driven. Info from mobile phone providers has also been used to determine speed in a few cases.
Also, whilst it may have been dark and the elderly couple might have been wearing dark clothing - I take it that the car's headlights were also operating?
Seriously what information do you think they're going to get? It will hold engine parameters but that's about it, it's not constantly logging speed steering input, etc. the police who investigated the accident calculated her speed to be about 30mph, she had recently attended a speed awareness course so was being very careful of her speed at the time of the accident. In the grand scheme of things if they calculated her speed at the time of the accident then why do they need to go further to continue to prove themselves right?
As for the vehicle headlights, they were working that's all in the information submitted in court, however as previously pointed out her view of the couple was obscured by a car coming the other way.

And thanks for posting the links with all the evidence you found, it's proved really helpful, because all that comes up when I google this case is a few snippets from the mirror, mail, BBC, ITV and a few welsh papers - all reporting the same, limited, information.
Your inability to google is no excuse for being so ignorant, however being ignorant is a perfect excuse for believing anything written in the Daily Fail! If you can't find all the information then don't make sweeping assumptions about the situation. Even if I post the links you'll find something else wrong with the case because you're 100% right about a case you know nothing about when a judge a jury a number of expert witnesses all apparently got it wrong? So keep searching doesn't matter to me.


And finally..."Though I do find it funny you only ever come on this forum now to post about your own outrage" I find it funny that I am so central to your life that you see fit to check up on my every visit to this site.


You're right of course I do miss it when you don't pop in, even if it is only to try and boost your woeful YouTube stats. I wouldn't however say you're exactly central to my life, I mean, it's hardly a full time job tracking your visits, they're that infrequent and it's not like it's every to contribute anything worth while to the forum.
 
Last edited:
Oh that doesn't supprise me at all, it probably said "this woman knocked down and killed two elderly people and walked free, share and like if you think she should be in prison"


Seriously what information do you think they're going to get? It will hold engine parameters but that's about it, it's not constantly logging speed steering input, etc. the police who investigated the accident calculated her speed to be about 30mph, she had recently attended a speed awareness course so was being very careful of her speed at the time of the accident. In the grand scheme of things if they calculated her speed at the time of the accident then why do they need to go further to continue to prove themselves right?
As for the vehicle headlights, they were working that's all in the information submitted in court, however as previously pointed out her view of the couple was obscured by a car coming the other way.


Your inability to google is no excuse for being so ignorant, however being ignorant is a perfect excuse for believing anything written in the Daily Fail! If you can't find all the information then don't make sweeping assumptions about the situation. Even if I post the links you'll find something else wrong with the case because you're 100% right about a case you know nothing about when a judge a jury a number of expert witnesses all apparently got it wrong? So keep searching doesn't matter to me.





You're right of course I do miss it when you don't pop in, even if it is only to try and boost your woeful YouTube stats. I wouldn't however say you're exactly central to my life, I mean, it's hardly a full time job tracking your visits, they're that infrequent and it's not like it's every to contribute anything worth while to the forum.
Actually, the BBC story came up on a group & nothing to do with like farming etc. The story in the red tops all told a similar tale.
As for my inability to google - I simply typed the woman's name into google & I got pages of the same stories coming up.
And, although it might not be a full time job tracking my activity on the forum, the very fact that you even bother to track MY visits speaks volumes.

And talking about ignorance and MY woeful youtube stats, I do hope your clips on youtube have improved since the 'undertaking' incident.
 
the very fact that you even bother to track MY visits speaks volumes.

And talking about ignorance and MY woeful youtube stats, I do hope your clips on youtube have improved since the 'undertaking' incident.


Well what can I say, clearly I miss you......either that or it's just blatantly obvious you only ever turn up to post your latest video of someone hesitating at a junction or someone not moving off quickly enough inconveniencing you for 4 or maybe even 5 seconds.

As for YouTube, I don't post pictures of people driving badly. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, it's not fair to have some self righteous jobs worth immortalise a simple mistake on the internet forever more, I mean, the sort of person who takes great pleasure in pointing out everyone else's little foibles, probably needs to stop and take a look at their own inadequacies.

Oh but I do have my other YouTube channel which has had over quarter of a million hits already this year and over 1000new subscribers..... Not bad really considering I've not posted a video since December.

Anyway back on topic, in this case justice was served and a woman who was innocent of the crime of causing death by dangerous driving was indeed found to be innocent.

I suppose you'll have to find something new to take your outrage on, the daily mail should help point you in the way of something appropriate.
 
Last edited:
As for YouTube, I don't post pictures of people driving badly. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, it's not fair to have some self righteous jobs worth immortalise a simple mistake on the internet forever more, I mean, the sort of person who takes great pleasure in pointing out everyone else's little foibles, probably needs to stop and take a look at their own inadequacies.
.
Really? I can't be the only one who remembers your clip of someone undertaking you while you were hogging lane 2.
And then to follow them into the services (fast food drive through) so you could get their reg on camera.
Or what about the clip of the elderly person who YOU deemed unfit to be driving?
Do as I say, not as I do?
 
Really? I can't be the only one who remembers your clip of someone undertaking you while you were hogging lane 2.
And then to follow them into the services (fast food drive through) so you could get their reg on camera.
Or what about the clip of the elderly person who YOU deemed unfit to be driving?
Do as I say, not as I do?


Indeed you are clearly the only one who remembers it and so vividly too it clearly left its mark, however I moved on and as previously pointed out I don't post these sorts of videos anymore and haven't done for a long time, more than two years in fact.

Every day millions of people take to the roads and its inevitable some will make mistakes or deliberately drive badly. Even the Highway Code you like to quote every 30 seconds acknowledges this. However if you want to spend hours of you life carefully editing and uploading videos of these people to feel better about your self so be it, every one needs a hobby.

Back on topic again, have you found any further news coverage of the story above, or have you given up on that now?
 
If it had been as open and shut as the daily mail have reported it there is no way she'd get off. Never mind finding out further facts, if all that was printed was all the facts she would have gone down the fact she hasn't means there is more to it.
 
have you, got links?

Yep, and as mentioned they're very easy to find if you use google, however that's not the point of this thread, the whole point of this thread is to condem a girl 5 months after a court case which proved her innocents on little to no information.

You can either Google the info for yourself (which is very easy to find)or believe the daily mail.

To post links would only mean that the thread continues to be discussed and not left to die in the darkest depths of the forum like it deserves to.

Needless to say, as StevenRB45 pointed out there is a great deal more to this case and if we just went on the ramblings of the daily fail then she would definitely have been convicted. It's worth remembering as well that this wasn't a some soft judge letting her off, the case was presided over by a jury who found her innocent based on the evidence provided in court, a jury doesn't tend to go easy on people.
 
Yep, and as mentioned they're very easy to find if you use google, however that's not the point of this thread, the whole point of this thread is to condem a girl 5 months after a court case which proved her innocents on little to no information.

You can either Google the info for yourself (which is very easy to find)or believe the daily mail.

To post links would only mean that the thread continues to be discussed and not left to die in the darkest depths of the forum like it deserves to.

Needless to say, as StevenRB45 pointed out there is a great deal more to this case and if we just went on the ramblings of the daily fail then she would definitely have been convicted. It's worth remembering as well that this wasn't a some soft judge letting her off, the case was presided over by a jury who found her innocent based on the evidence provided in court, a jury doesn't tend to go easy on people.
thread title says Justice system not girl gets away with man slaughter, as long as you keep posting thread wont die so you may as well put up or shut up. a jury is just like people from the internet but in real life
 
Back
Top