Michael Mason Inquest

[Dan B]

why folk in here, who I assume ride the odd mile or two on a bike* from time-to-time, ...

You can't make assumptions like that about people unless there was an independent witness. Just because they're on a cycling forum talking about cycling, you don't know why they're doing that. Perhaps it was just an accident

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm going to make this my final post in this thread, I think. From here

"DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident."

In DI Mason's opinion there was no evidence, No evidence but marks on a car bumper and a dying cyclist in the road, and a driver's admission.

In DI Mason's opinion careful and competent drivers knock cyclists off their bikes and kill them.

I don't think the words careful and competent mean what he thinks they mean.

What a load of fiddle. I despair. And my Fly6 is going on every ride from now on. Bar none.

 

[Lemond]

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.

Let me enlighten you anyway. My view in all of this is that the police are being unfairly criticised. I do not believe them to be incompetant. I do not believe them to be corrupt. I do not believe there is any conspiracy here.

I believe they investigated this incident without an agenda. I believe that if the police consider the evidence available is not sufficient to bring about a charge, then they reached that decision honestly and were not driven by some need to protect the driver. People might not like that decision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.

And finally, I believe what happened to Mr Mason was a tragedy.

 

[Dan B]

I believe you're indulging in circular reasoning.

 

[Dan B]

Oh, and that your use of the word "enlighten"above is grossly inappropriate

 

[benb]

It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?

 

[spen666]

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.

Name a single case where the only evidence was there had been a collision and a conviction followed and I will show you a case where there was a wrongful conviction on the evidence.

The offence is careless driving, not being involved in a collision

 

[glenn forger]

Let me enlighten you anyway. My view in all of this is that the police are being unfairly criticised. .

The Mason family discovered that the Met had made a mistake and not referred the case through the media. Their family liaison officer didn't even bother to get in touch. The Met have behaved disgracefully.

 

[Lemond]

It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?

I don't think anyone is saying that. What the police are saying is that the evidence in and of itself isn't enough to charge the driver. An eyewitness might have meant a different decision, or maybe reinforced the decision taken.

 

[spen666]

It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?

what does forensic evidence prove? it proves there was a collision. that alone does not prove any offence

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Name a single case where the only evidence was there had been a collision and a conviction followed and I will show you a case where there was a wrongful conviction on the evidence.

The offence is careless driving, not being involved in a collision

This hit and run driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (after sterling work by the Irish police) in a unanimous decision. No witnesses to the collision and the killer's vehicle wasn't even found.

Will that do?


GC

 

[spen666]

This hit and run driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (after sterling work by the Irish police) in a unanimous decision. No witnesses to the collision and the killer's vehicle wasn't even found.

Will that do?


GC

Well for a start its a different country and different laws.

Secondly there was more evidence than simply the fact a collision had occured - the fact the body had been thrown into the hedge some distance from the collision for example. That shows the accident had happened at high speed. Hence you now have the additional evidence of high speed

Wait, what;'s this

Evidence would be given that “the deceased was on his correct side of the road and the driver of the Land Cruiser was on his incorrect side,” Mr Rice said.

Oh look seems like there was some more evidence there

strangely we already have far more evidence than just a collision occurred.

 

[spen666]

oh and 140 prosecution witnesses would suggest there is more evidence than the fact a collision took place.

Evidence is not just eye witnesses

 

[benb]

what does forensic evidence prove? it proves there was a collision. that alone does not prove any offence

It can do.

 

[benb]

What seems to be the case, IMO, is that the investigating officer was incompetent and biased.