I have seen no previous mention of it being a second trial -presumably because a previous jury failed to agree? I can imagine that the make up of a jury would have a great effect on the outcome.
Irrespective of the evidence presented in court, I suspect a jury of cyclists would likely find her guilty, but a jury of 65 year old pensioners would be likely to return a not guilty verdict.
The published statement from a cycling forum is always likely to show a biased element.
- A person lost their life due to the stupid aggressive actions of another. The pedantry of whether it was a shared path or not, is meaningless.
It could be easily rewritten as
- A person lost their life due to their aggressive cycling on a pavement , failing to slow down and maintain control of their machine when failing to yield in response to a passive aggressive action from an elderly pedestrian.
In my eyes if a shared path - possibly guilty, not shared - not guilty. Based on the the local input above, there seems to be little support for the shared aspect. Would be interesting to know how the defence presented the evidence?
Is there likely to be an appeal?
|
