You took the words out of my mouth Maree, if you hadn’t have wrote this then I surely would.
As an ex-runner I have been tripped, bitten, licked and muddied by careless out of control animals, and the dogs are just as bad…
Almost everyone on my housing estate has at least one dog, some have three or four, and they bring them on the green next to my house to toilet them. Walking into foul smelling doggie doos has been the bain of my life over the years… 
Forget cyclists whizzing along the footpaths, it’s the dogs that cause more trouble, and cyclists don’t usually defecate all over the path.
Why would we celebrate her life, any more than we would celebrate the life of Auriol Grey - we don’t know either of them.
Until recently, both were total strangers to us, and still are.
Personally i would celebrate the life of someone who is known to me, is related to me, or a friend, otherwise i wouldn’t know if their life is worth celebrating. For example they may not have been a kind person in life, so why the celebration?
I agree with the things you say about the cyclist could be true, but may not be.
Maybe Auriol spends most of her life, helping others who suffer from the same disability as herself.
Maybe Auriol has spent most of her unfortunate life taking in injured and disabled animals, nobody else wants.
All could be true, however it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t know, for certain if Auriol’s actions caused the cyclist to come of the pavement, or whether it was the cyclists own actions that caused her own death.
One thing i’m certain of - you won’t find the answer in that 10 second video.
That crossed my mind as well - that poor person would seen the cyclist but had no time to avoid her. A horrible thing to have to live with.
Or, wait, if Auriol is the victim, and the cyclist was an elderly 77 year old simply reacting to Auriol, and it was the car hitting the cyclist that killed her, then the only person to blame is…
2 Likes
I wondered about the nature of this appeal. There has already been one attempt for an appeal rejected. This one seems to have been approved because of tests done after the trial indicated thar Auriol has a form of autism. (Note, I can’t find any confirmation or details on what this means exactly as autism is a spectrum of conditions rather one, specific, defined condition.) The previous appeal was to reduce the sentence, not to overturn the conviction of manslaughter.
Auriol Grey had been charged with unlawful act manslaughter – which requires an unlawful action to take place that caused death. Her lawyers argued that no such action was considered by the jury at Grey’s trial. If this appeal is successful, that is if it demonstrates that no unlawful act took place, then Grey might be acquitted.
But. As this thread as shown there is much debate about whether Grey’s actions to the cyclist was intentional, led directly to the toppling of the cyclist, and was so ill-considered in the circumstances that it constitutes being illegal. That seems like a very close call. For me, it is hard to see how her actions could be construed as entirely lawful.
Further, if it is confirmed it was an unlawful act then her lawyers might argue diminished responsibility (down to autism, etc.). That again seems like a difficult decision as it is not as if Grey was forced or pressured into her actions. These actions were made of her free will.
My guess, the judge will decide still guilty but reduced sentence.
Totally agree. This view assumes that the cyclist bears no responsibility for their actions. As we get older jumping out of the way of a speeding bike is not an option for many. There is no age limit, fitness test, insurance requirement or mental acuity test when it comes to cycling. Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. People don’t have to pass a road safety exam. They are just allowed to hop on a bike and do what they please. When someone is aged 77 their mental and physical reflexes are not what they were at 57 or 27.
1 Like
Whether her actions are unlawful would depend on her knowledge of physics. That she should know that if she waved her arm at any particular moment the car coming towards her at a distance would run the cyclist over just after she had waved her arm and touched (or not) the cyclist. Perhaps she is a savant who can do such complex calculations in her head in a split second or perhaps she was just waving her arm that exaggerated way because of her cerebral palsy, girth and trying to warn the cyclist at a distance to stop cycling on the pavement. Is it unlawful to wave your arm at someone and swear? Maybe the bad language is considered abusive but waving your arm isn’t a crime. If you have a poor judge of distance and poor eyesight you might not be able to judge the mathematical distance in order to ensure that the cyclist is hit by your arm, falls under the oncoming car and dies. That’s what they are judging in the appeal.
The problem with this trial is that her autism will prevent her from making an adequate defence. Those on the spectrum do not have normal “theory of mind”, so they have problems understanding someone else’s position is not their position, they have difficulty understanding that someone’s views, behaviour might be different to their own.
1 Like
I would say that rather as part of her free will, what happened was down to a perfect storm which can be explained by physics and mathematics.
Apparently the jury in this case, did not find Auriol guilty of an unlawful action.
Well the cyclist if her unstable behaviour that day caused her own demise.
So really quire possible that not only was the cyclist responsible for her own death, but she could also be responsible for the castigation and imprisonment of a severely disabled person, plus the trauma caused to a motorist, who may never recover from her ordeal.
I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion! Surely being found guilty of manslaughter is just that - being found guilty of an unlawful action?
2 Likes
I didn’t come to that conclusion Margaret, it was mentioned in one of the articles online.
And i think the law is a tad more complicated than that.
The appeal lodges on the fact that a verdict of manslaughter requires proof that an unlawful action took place which then caused the death. This is deemed not to have been considered in the original trial.
1 Like
Grey has been convicted of Constructive Manslaughter which is classified as an unlawful act, so unless and until she wins her appeal which quashes her conviction, she is guilty of an unlawful act in the eyes of the law!
2 Likes
They are not going to be judging anyone’s knowledge of physics or their ability to do mental calculation - that must be the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen on this forum.
What they are judging is whether Grey’s actions were unlawful - that is, her remonstrating, waving and stepping towards the cyclist. I’d guess they’d ask themselves “is it reasonable to assume such actions would cause an elderly cyclist alarm?” Grey’s judgement should have been to be more careful with this cyclist, due to the cyclist’s evident age and small size. It is up to the appeals court to determine whether Grey’s actions were just very careless, badly judged and ill-considered or actually unlawful.
1 Like
Oh dear, and there was me trying to common ground between us and divert the blame game away from either the cyclist or the pedestrian…
Firstly your comment about the cyclist is absurd, considering she was perched on a bike and elevated off the ground, making it difficult for anyone with 20/20 vision to determine her height, let alone a severely disabled, half blind person - as if the size or height of the cyclist makes a difference anyway.
Secondly as a cyclist on a footpath designated for pedestrians, this woman should have noticed the disability of poor Auriol -, and should have taken immediate action in order to prevent injury to her.
I get it, you think Grey is completely innocent and the bad cyclist deserved what she got. How come them most, including the judge, thought otherwise? How come the initial appeal was simply over the sentence and not the judgement - so the lawyers then thought the same about Grey’s guilt? How come, in your descriptions Grey has gone from ‘partially sighted’ to ‘half blind’? How come your descriptions she has reduced from ‘walked with a leg split which would have slowed her down’ to ‘severely disabled’?
Me thinks you protest too much and now exaggerate to back fill the gaps in your arguments. Anyone can notice the size of a person and the age of a person when up close - and Grey got right up close. And personal.
I’ve said before, given the mitigating issues around Grey’s health and impairments, that the original sentence was harsh. Hopefully this appeal will rectify that.
2 Likes
I disagree, they are no longer total strangers to any of us who have posted comments referring to this case.
We know more about Auriol Grey than we do about Celia Ward, and I think there has been a deliberate act by some posters to support their argument with details about Auriol’s medical history but have totally ignored Celia’s medical history. How can anyone make a balanced argument without knowing what brought Celia to cycle down that footpath and get herself accosted by some crazy woman.
All life is precious whether you know them or not, and we all must do our utmost to protect, not just our lives, but the lives of fellow humans, and not do anything that might put someone in danger.
1 Like
Yes i think she was a bad cyclist. Had she been a good and considerate cyclist, she would be alive today. No she did not deserve to die.
Another absurd comment obviously.
Yes i do believe Auriol Grey is innocent. She tried to protect herself from harm that day, the only way she could considering her disabilities.
Auriol is partially sighted, which really is the same as being ‘half blind’.
The judge?
I’d rather not comment.
My point was that Auriol does not appear to have aimed to push Celia under the car. She was fully focused on trying to get Celia out of her way. I don’t think Auriol saw the car at all. Neither did Celia. They were fully focused on each other. That’s why it was an accident. Neither party was paying attention to what was happening on the road.