Michael Mason Inquest

[Lemond]

So what do you think happened considering all the information that has been bandied about? What extra information were they missing?

Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason? Nobody saw what happened, so how could the police say with certainty that he didn't? The evidence available only gives part of the picture. Surely more is needed if criminal charges are to be made?

 

[Dan B]

Did a cloaked alien spacecraft enter the atmosphere and knock him off his bike?

Perhaps a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to see it

 

[Lemond]

So what? We know beyond any doubt that the impact occurred. We know who was driving the car. We know that the driver admitted not seeing the cyclist. What more does it need before you would put that to a court?

But you don't know why the impact happened, do you.

 

[Dan B]

Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason?

The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.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.

 

[Dan B]

Is there a one handed clapping smiley?

I think it's the one that looks like the Pope

 

[Lemond]

Yes I believe I do. The driver of the car drove into the cyclist.

As I said, you don't know why. And nobody else does either. Because nobody saw what happened. And all of the evidence gathered by the police doesn't paint a clear enough picture either.

 

[Lemond]

We don't need to know why. That it occurred is a known. The person responsible is a known. That they failed to see him is established by their account. That is enough to put to a court. The only doubt is whether it is enough to put to a court on a good enough charge.

So why have the police not taken this further? Could it be that they actually know more than you? Or that they know that the evidence available isn't enough to support a charge? like it or not that's what they are there for. They deal with the evidence available and in this instance they clearly do not feel that a charge could be supported. That's only right and proper. None of this is their fault...unless you are one of the loony "it was the royal family that done it" conspiracy brigade.

 

[spen666]

Three serving traffic officers and one CPS lawyer I'm in contact with say you are wrong. Any reasonable unbiased jury would consider it proved.

Where do you think there is reasonable doubt? Did a cloaked alien spacecraft enter the atmosphere and knock him off his bike?

I have not seen the evidence. I was commenting on the list I quoted.

There is no apparent evidence in that list as to how he came to come off his bike.

There is a huge difference between what happened and being able to PROVE what happened. Its not about which version is more likely to be true, its about proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Its a very high standard

 

[spen666]

We don't need to know why. That it occurred is a known. The person responsible is a known. That they failed to see him is established by their account. That is enough to put to a court. The only doubt is whether it is enough to put to a court on a good enough charge.

None of that, even if accepted proves careless driving. You need more than that. You can prove a collission occurred. That does not prove careless.

It may well be careless, it may well be dangerous, but the Crown need to prove it.

Speculation and supposition and conjecture is not proof in a criminal court

 

[Lemond]

That is the mystery of the matter.

There is no mystery. Read either post by spen666 that appear above or below your post. This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason? Nobody saw what happened, so how could the police say with certainty that he didn't? The evidence available only gives part of the picture. Surely more is needed if criminal charges are to be made?

They didn't. Next.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

But you don't know why the impact happened, do you.

Yes. A car, driven by a chufftard, travelling at a speed higher than the bicycle in front of it, carrying considerable kinetic energy, caught up with the bike and collided straight-on with the rear wheel of the bicycle transferring some of its kinetic energy to the slower moving bicycle. Cyclist fell from bike as a direct result of this unexpected energy transfer, injured his brain and died.

Simple. Physics is like that. MERCILESS.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I have not seen the evidence. I was commenting on the list I quoted.

There is no apparent evidence in that list as to how he came to come off his bike.

There is a huge difference between what happened and being able to PROVE what happened. Its not about which version is more likely to be true, its about proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Its a very high standard

forensics have shown the car hit the bike. the driver admitted the car hit the bike.

Folk have been convicted on much more serious charges on much flimsier evidence.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

There is no mystery. Read either post by spen666 that appear above or below your post. This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.

It is a mystery because it is usually the CPS's call to make, not plod's, and plod didn't even refer it to CPS. They said they would. then they said they wouldn't.

And now you're going on my ignore list. goodbye.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The bit I am not understanding is why people are quite so desperate that it should be impossible to put to a court. Having said that, I don't think I want to know.

The only thing that is greater than my discomfort about why folk in here, who I assume ride the odd mile or two on a bike* from time-to-time, asserting there is no case to answer, is my discomfort with the Met's actions and statements in this case.

*of course, they probably all drive too much and are maybe more than a little driver-centric rather than cyclist-centric in their thinking, albeit, perhaps, unconsciously. Thus they are all a bit "Poor woman!" and "there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I."