Michael Mason Inquest

[benb]

The witness saw what happened.

The collision damage investigator did not see what happened and is purely making assumptions.

Such assumptions can be clever and insightful.

They can also be - like so many assumptions - badly misleading.

I'd give more credibility and weight to physical evidence than a witness statement any day.

 

[Pale Rider]

I'd give more credibility and weight to physical evidence than a witness statement any day.

Trouble is you are having to rely on assumptions made from that evidence.

In a crash, you might hear that the nearside front tyre of the car deflated.

It did, that's unarguable.

What you then hear is the damage investigator's opinion of what that means - that's when it gets difficult.

As I said, a lot of these guys are very clever.

But equally, I've been to hearings at which two apparently equally qualified experts give conflicting evidence.

It's then for a jury if there is one, or the coroner when sitting alone, to weigh up which interpretation of the events is the most likely.

 

[glenn forger]

 

[oldstrath]

Trouble is you are having to rely on assumptions made from that evidence.

In a crash, you might hear that the nearside front tyre of the car deflated.

It did, that's unarguable.

What you then hear is the damage investigator's opinion of what that means - that's when it gets difficult.

As I said, a lot of these guys are very clever.

But equally, I've been to hearings at which two apparently equally qualified experts give conflicting evidence.

It's then for a jury if there is one, or the coroner when sitting alone, to weigh up which interpretation of the events is the most likely.

I admit to finding the willingness to believe witnesses over physical evidence baffling. According to Porter's account
"Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated."

How a set of allegedly independent policemen, and an allegedly independent coroner, can ignore that is beyond me. One can only conclude that killing cyclists is no longer a crime, and perhaps we should be prepared to fight back, since the law has lost interest in defending us.

 

[oldstrath]

Reading that last link makes it confusing, the witnesses appear to put the rider in several places at once, on the offside, 1M from the kerb, turning right & then the forensics say he was directly in front of the car between the centre line & offside. Despite all of that I do find it difficult to believe that no charges we made against the driver, driving without due care & attention at least, which by her own admission she was.

This utter confusion is exactly why witness reports are frequently useless. A bunch of people with other things on their mind half see something scary and make up stories to fill in the blanks. No, that doesn't make them liars, it just makes them people. Set this against the physical evidence of a tyre mark and dent in the car. Unless you believe that this woman, or whoever the taxpayers actually bought the car for, is in the habit of ramming bikes you would need to explain how a first impact with the wing mirror could explain this dent.

I doubt anyone could seriously offer such an explanation, and conclude that the police and coroner have simply seized on a way, however implausible, to do what they wanted to do, and exonerate the killer.

 

[Lemond]

What's implausible to me is the idea that the met police and the coroner are partners in some conspiracy to protect a hairdresser from prosecution. Isn't it more plausible that the strength of evidence needed to bring about a successful prosecution just doesn't exist? Might that not explain why the police continue to call for witnesses to come forward?

 

[CopperCyclist]

Why is a car with a load of impacts, a collection of witnesses who all say they saw a collision between car and cyclist, and a driver who admits seeing nothing but acknowledges the collision, not strong enough evidence for a prosecution?

I'm between the two arguments.

I don't think for a second there's any sorry of conspiracy, or even desire to not prosecute a motorist.

I don't understand why on all the evidence available there is no prosecution.

I'd like an explanation from the CPS why it is either not felt in the public interest or what the evidence lacks. I hope the charity campaign gets it.

 

[CopperCyclist]

I am not suggesting for one second any sort of conspiracy, just a bad decision.

Sorry, I didn't say you were, though others have. My bad for quoting your post, I actually meant to just 'reply' bit clicked 'reply' on the last post (yours) instead and inadvertently quoted you - sorry!

 

[CopperCyclist]

Too many beers at the family Christmas eve meal. Not usual for me to have Christmas off!

 

[oldstrath]

What's implausible to me is the idea that the met police and the coroner are partners in some conspiracy to protect a hairdresser from prosecution. Isn't it more plausible that the strength of evidence needed to bring about a successful prosecution just doesn't exist? Might that not explain why the police continue to call for witnesses to come forward?

Don't need a conspiracy, just a general disinclination to prosecute motorists unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to be undeniable. Quite possibly because experience has shown that jurors, most of whom drive, will go with the 'it could have been me' argument.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Don't need a conspiracy, just a general disinclination to prosecute motorists unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to be undeniable. Quite possibly because experience has shown that jurors, most of whom drive, will go with the 'it could have been me' argument.

The bit I've bolded is pretty much accurate as to what CPS will run for all cases, not just motoring ones.

From what I can see though, on the forensics and the admissions of the driver, they have it for this case.

 

[benb]

I'm between the two arguments.

I don't think for a second there's any sorry of conspiracy, or even desire to not prosecute a motorist.

I don't understand why on all the evidence available there is no prosecution.

I'd like an explanation from the CPS why it is either not felt in the public interest or what the evidence lacks. I hope the charity campaign gets it.

AIUI it was nothing to do with the CPS; it was the Met who decided not to send the case up for consideration of prosecution. Completely inexplicable.

 

[glenn forger]

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/baroness-jones-raises-concern-over-mason-case

Baroness Jones pointed out that the Met’s decision not to prosecute the driver based on insufficient evidence – as none of the witnesses interviewed actually saw the collision – potentially reveals a worrying over-reliance on witness statements in Met Police road crash investigations. This echoes a call that CTC’s Road Justice campaign made in its report ‘Road Justice: the role of the police’ for the collection of auxiliary evidence such asCCTV and helmet camera footage when there are no witnesses to a collision.

Baroness Jones stressed her fear that the failure of the police to pursue this case may send out a message that cyclists who ‘take the road’, as Mr Mason had done to make himself more visible on approach to a pinch point, are not protected by law if they are hit by a motorist.

With the assistance of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, Mr Mason’s family instructed CTCambassador Martin Porter QC to engage with the police and CPS on their behalf, with the aim of reversing the decision not to prosecute. Baroness Jones reiterated this call in her letter.

 

[spen666]

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/baroness-jones-raises-concern-over-mason-case

Baroness Jones pointed out that the Met’s decision not to prosecute the driver based on insufficient evidence – as none of the witnesses interviewed actually saw the collision – potentially reveals a worrying over-reliance on witness statements in Met Police road crash investigations. ....

I'm not sure she has engaged her brain fully before making this particular point.

Without witness(es) there is no evidence against a suspect.

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and therefore evidence is necessary. I for one would not want a situation where people are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Indeed it would be a breach of a fundmental human right


The above should not be taken as saying I think the police actions in this case were correct.

 

[spen666]

Forensic evidence (paint analysis etc) has been used in car on car collisions hasn't it? Spen's assertion is a bit ridiculous.

Erm, I think you will find that there would need to be a witness to introduce this evidence as their findings, and where appropriate be cross examined on their statement

TMN's assertion is clearly a bit ridiculous as evidence does not simply appear from thin air.

Sorry, TMN you obviously do not understand what a witness is