Funny you should say that … I’m not sure if it was fake news and I’d have to hunt to find it but there have been suggestions that the road signage in the area indicating it was a shared pathway were only put up last year … that’s to say, put up after the accident in Oct 2000.
The Council has put itself in an awkward position by claiming it can’t find any record of that stretch of road.
Brief, but she sounds more articulate and with it than I first thought she might be.
Interesting. My initial reaction is that medication was involved.
She doesn’t sound more articulate than I expected… . people with learning difficulties do speak like other people.
But … I will say one thing.
After watching the video and when asked if she had heard what she said she claimed she couldn’t tell.
I think she was put on the spot, and tried to duck out of answering and should have just said … Yeh, I can’t really remember but I must have said that , I was angry, frightened, couldn’t see …or whatever’.
Or does that mean she genuinely can’t really remember … but she probably never ever thought it would result in a woman’s death ?
I’m fairly sure she didn’t intend for the woman to die, and if as per Dex’s post cyclists should not be cycling on the pavement by law, then that could be part of the reason why she was angry and so willing to be vocal about it.
It’s hard to say, no doubt she is feeling awful tho. I remember having an accident in my car when someone and their young baby was in it (I used to have nightmares of her gripping her baby and screaming ‘my baby, my baby’ as we hurtled towards a wall) and I remember just after the accident I had this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach, a mixture of deep regret, bewilderment, shock and anger (I wasn’t expecting to crash, and felt like it was my fault - even if not being able to prevent it). It’s an awful feeling. (Luckily we were all ok!)
The video confirms what the judge said - “You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.”
… from which one might infer that Grey knows good from bad, right from wrong and was not prepared to admit her guilt.
Given that a snatch of confiramtory video has now surfaced then should more confirmatory snatches appear, including one, perhaps, that shows Grey actually pushing Celia under a car (1) then all under-informed argument regarding culpability will cease.
Frankly, that’s not one I want to see but, seemingly, it’s the only thing that will convince the internet “experts”, the armchair “warriors” and the social media “trolls”.
I think I read somewhere that she a good education at a private school and she’s fairly articulate with quite a push accent
She was very cagey in that interview, did she already have a lawyer by then, I wonder?
If so, maybe she’d been primed to say “I don’t remember” to tricky questions?
That must have been awful Azz, you never get over that sort of thing
The car driver in this case must be traumatised in the same way, another victim of Ms Grey’s behaviour
But you’re protecting your own feelings onto this pedestrian and I don’t think there’s any evidence Ms Grey feels awful about the death she caused.
Most people would, as you say, but she’s never shown any remorse or apologised. She strikes me as rather entitled, seeing herself as the victim
Disabled people can have just us unpleasant personalities as able bodied people, their disability isn’t an automatic get out
And if the council don’t know if it was a shared pathway or not, how could the cyclist?
It’s completely irrelevant anyway
We all get angry and annoyed if we see what we perceive to be anti social behaviour
What most of us don’t do is stomp up to people waving our arms and swearing at them and cause them to fall in the road under a car
That’s why it’s manslaughter
They are only on the other side of the road and those signs have been up there for at least 8 years. But there are none of the side of the road where the accident took place so that’s just a pedestrian pavement.
The long and the short of it Grey behaved badly and caused a woman’s death .
A good example of how self control is important , losing it / bad behaviour is an indulgence that could result in imprisonment .
I don’t think any of the evidence can clearly show her deliberately pushing the cyclist into the road, under the car
If there was, wouldn’t that be murder, not manslaughter?
Even the eye witness only said she “might” have made physical contact
Well, exactly, and hopefully her sentence will make others think twice before indulging in such tantrums and Grey will either learn to control herself or be supervised in future
How is manslaughter different from murder?
The difference between murder and manslaughter is whether there was malice aforethought before the unlawful killing. Murder is an unlawful killing with malice. Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that did not involve a malicious state of mind.
So wouldn’t deliberately pushing someone in front of traffic be murder?
A jury would have “manslaughter” described thus by the judge:
Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:
- Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
- Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and
- Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).
The term “involuntary manslaughter” is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as “voluntary manslaughter”.
with apposite examples.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Murder
Subject to three exceptions (see Partial Defences to Murder below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the King’s Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).Murder cannot be committed by a company or other corporation. (However, see Corporate Manslaughter elsewhere in the Legal Guidance).
Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
So, it’s all about “intent”.
Phew!
Bet you did not carry on and do your shopping?
No we were on the way home from a party (no I hadn’t been drinking 
)
Did that lady go on to do her shopping? Was it food shopping or for non-essentials?
I know that when I had an(other) accident, when a guy on a motorbike pulled out in front of me without looking and my car literally just ‘tapped’ his bike and he went flying and needed an ambulance 
I was in shock! But perhaps everyone reacts differently? I don’t really know much about this case other than seeing the video in Omah’s original post, the updated one, and the latest one of her being interviewed…
Please note some posts have been removed. Think it might be best if @Morticia and @Dextrous63 refrain from replying to or commenting about @Omah’s posts and vice-versa in this thread moving forward. Thank you.
She don’t look like a Non-essential sort of lass.
