Oxford St.Cyclist V. cabbie in court, the final result

On 24 Oct, 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2010 18:27, Squashme wrote:



On 22 Oct, 12:13, *wrote:
On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:

On 17 Oct, 03:32, * *wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
* * * *I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
* * * *the witnesses in this case weren't actually there.. Is anybody
* * * *claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
* * * *truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

You said:-

"Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that verdict.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going to be
available (but not on that particular day*) and when the "witnesses"
for the
other side have only been produced via a public appeal seems like
material
for a setting-aside (igf that's possible in a criminal case)."

Put your money where your mouth is. You're concerned about the
decision, why don't you offer to help the CPS, rather than making
snide comments here? Let us know how you get on.

What assistance could I give them?

They are not ignorant either of the law or of the process for dealing with cases.

They obviously lack your objectivity, skill and knowledge.

It was the court that made the decision, not the CPS.

Really? Thank you for that.


You ought to read up on the English legal system. Your knowledge of it is hazy.

Your knowledge hasn't done you much good here, has it? A little more
common-sense might help you.

You're the one who is "surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that
verdict."

Your prejudices blinded you to the obvious.

On 24/10/2010 18:20, Squashme wrote:
On 24 Oct, 16:13, wrote:
On 22/10/2010 18:27, Squashme wrote:



On 22 Oct, 12:13, wrote:
On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:

On 17 Oct, 03:32, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

You said:-

"Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that verdict.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going to be
available (but not on that particular day*) and when the "witnesses"
for the
other side have only been produced via a public appeal seems like
material
for a setting-aside (igf that's possible in a criminal case)."

Put your money where your mouth is. You're concerned about the
decision, why don't you offer to help the CPS, rather than making
snide comments here? Let us know how you get on.

What assistance could I give them?

They are not ignorant either of the law or of the process for dealing with cases.

They obviously lack your objectivity, skill and knowledge.

It was the court that made the decision, not the CPS.

Really? Thank you for that.


You ought to read up on the English legal system. Your knowledge of it is hazy.

Your knowledge hasn't done you much good here, has it? A little more
common-sense might help you.

You're the one who is "surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that
verdict."

That's because I didn't expect the evidence of eye-witnesses not to be heard.

Did you expect that?

Your prejudices blinded you to the obvious.

The "prejudice" that witnesses should be allowed to give evidence and that
cases should - if necessary - be adjourned in order that it might happen?

What sort of "prejudice" is that, compared to your own preference for
excluding the evidence of prosecution witnesses where the defendant happens
to be a cyclist?

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 24 Oct, 23:15, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2010 22:46, Squashme wrote:



On 24 Oct, 21:10, *wrote:
On 24/10/2010 18:20, Squashme wrote:

On 24 Oct, 16:13, * *wrote:
On 22/10/2010 18:27, Squashme wrote:

On 22 Oct, 12:13, * * *wrote:
On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:

On 17 Oct, 03:32, * * * *wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
* * * * * * *I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
* * * * * * *the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
* * * * * * *claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
* * * * * * *truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

You said:-

"Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that verdict.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going to be
available (but not on that particular day*) and when the "witnesses"
for the
other side have only been produced via a public appeal seems like
material
for a setting-aside (igf that's possible in a criminal case)."

Put your money where your mouth is. You're concerned about the
decision, why don't you offer to help the CPS, rather than making
snide comments here? Let us know how you get on.

What assistance could I give them?

They are not ignorant either of the law or of the process for dealing with cases.

They obviously lack your objectivity, skill and knowledge.

It was the court that made the decision, not the CPS.

Really? Thank you for that.

You ought to read up on the English legal system. Your knowledge of it is hazy.

Your knowledge hasn't done you much good here, has it? A little more
common-sense might help you.

You're the one who is "surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that
verdict."

That's because I didn't expect the evidence of eye-witnesses not to be heard.

Did you expect that?
No, but two eyewitnesses did give evidence. Two out of three isn't
bad. The third chose to exercise his right to be abroad, when needed
by the prosecution. No inference may be drawn, doubtless. Two
witnesses may outweigh one, I guess.

That depends on a number of factors, as I expect you may be aware.

You aren't surprised by the fact that, as far as I can see, the name
of the taxidriver who claimed to be the victim does not appear in the
press. Is this usual?

The victim of a crime not named?

It is unusual. But there is no real public interest in naming victims of they
prefer not to be named.

I seem to recollect that they are not usually anonymous.

You are right on that particular point.

Your prejudices blinded you to the obvious.
The "prejudice" that witnesses should be allowed to give evidence and that
cases should - if necessary - be adjourned in order that it might happen?
The result would have been the same.

You don't know that and you cannot credibly assert it.

You don't - and can't - know what would have happened had the witness been
allowed to give evidence.

It will always be a fly in the ointment when you and others point to the
acquittal.

You may pretend so. You cannot know it.


The taxidriver's evidence was not
found credible.

You don't know that.

I know you think you do, but you don't.

All you - or anyone else - can know is that the court - on the basis of all
the evidence it heard (never forgetting that there was evidence it chose not
to hear) - decided that a conviction would not be justified or safe.

"The Crown Prosecution Service had failed in a bid to have the case
adjourned after its witness - who claimed to have seen Mr Kelly attack
the cabbie - was unable to attend court because he was out of the
country. But a CPS spokeswoman admitted that the court "didn’t find
the victim’s evidence credible"."
Not credible. Believe the CPS?

Yes - an interesting paragraph - linking two totally disparate parts
of the case together.

1) It was not the CPS who found the victim's evidence "incredible" -
despite the innuendo

2) There is no evidence that anyone found it so.

3) Of course the only place that that is reported is in a "blog" of an
Evening Standard reporter - say no more.




--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?