one-eyed_jim":3f9i3x72 said:
Tazio":3f9i3x72 said:
From looking at the reports from the time of the trial it is accepted that what he shouted was reported verbatim, though that of course could be a fabrication from the girls friends.
I found some comments from the defendant's solicitor that I remember reading at the time of the trial. The simplest way to get to them is to go to this blog entry and click "Comments":
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogs ... oited.html
In particular:
"None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.
None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist."
cgt
"I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.
He was on the road.
The girl was drunk.
I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and capable District Judge.
What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.
The cyclist is a thorughly decent bloke who is devastated."
and:
"Hats off to the person who has spotted that almost all of the press coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The evidence came out very differently in Court.
None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.
None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist.
Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some of the reporters got their information. Some of them even had us in the Crown Court!
I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much quieter life!"
You can say all that in terms of what came out in the trial - as opposed to any opening comments (or for that matter, comments made in the press).
But in court much would have come down to which side of the story was most credible, and matched the facts.
Now we can all make judgements, after the facts, on what was said, what happened in the trial, who said what, and what was reported by the press. But at the end of the day, he was convicted of something - no doubt the end result had a bearing on that - but all the same, he wasn't convicted of merely being careless.
So not merely accidental, but more deliberate omission.
Now it's always possible that there's been a miscarriage of justice - and that the result wasn't correct - but if the argument, here, is that people are commenting on the prosecution's opening statement - and that's what the media did, too - the court wouldn't have been so misdirected, and still convicted for the "dangerous" offence.
