On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 11:38:48 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote:

On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that
work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court of lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

Stop being so utterly thick.

Don't be so obtuse.

I stand my ground.

It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice.

It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts
that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court".

It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF.

The technical details would have been established long before the CDF
got involved...

...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be
proven to be false".

The police saw no reason to prosecute, and this was later supported by
both the CPS decision not to take over the private prosecution (that is
always considered) and the jury's uber-fast rejection of the CDF's
"case" immediately on hearing it.

That does not justify the term "establish", a word which suggests that
what was tendered by the CDF (and by no-one else) is the truth. Only the
CDF and people like you believe that. Everyone else who was involved
took the view that those "technical details" were, at best, mistaken.
And at worst... well... something else.

Them's the facts.

These days, the police - especially the Met - and the CPS are actually
trigger-happy on alleged CDBCD and CDBDD. It seems to be the policy of
the police to arrest anyone even tangentially involved in a fatal
traffic accident. You would not be all that surprised to hear of the
arrest of a witness who sees an incident from a second-floor window.

When they take no action, you can be reasonably sure that there is no
case to answer. When the CPS decline to take over an ill-advised private
prosecution, there is a much better chance of the case being thrown out
than there is of a conviction.

But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. Do you really say that
when an "expert" (whoever it might be) pronounces on something in
evidence, that's the case open and shut, game set and match because he
may not be challenged and cannot be wrong?

You are confusing two different things.

I am not doing that.

You are taking the line that the CDF's dodgy case has to be the truth.
That was rejected as a proposition by every professional and lay part of
the justice system.

Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

The Criminal Protection Service base their decision to prosecute on the probability of a conviction, the merits of the case are not relevant.

For example, if you were on the jury you would automatically decide the cyclist was at fault.