"An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
....The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
statements on the events leading to the deaths."
The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
"narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.
"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
8<...
Did you have a point at all?
Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped
The evasions, abdications of responsibility and blame-shifting
continues.
Harris had to scrape ice off his car before setting off, and then
throws his hands up in horror and dismay when he hit the completely
unpredictable black ice that he assumed wasn't there as he cornered,
at speed, on a frosty morning.
I wonder if Lyn gets the rollocking he richly deserves.
On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm
>
> "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
> ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
> statements on the events leading to the deaths."
>
> The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
> "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
> jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.
So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
allowed was one of accidental death?
In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.
David Martin wrote:
> On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm
>> "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
>> ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
>> statements on the events leading to the deaths."
>>
>> The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
>> "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
>> jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.
>
> So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
> so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
> allowed was one of accidental death?
>
> In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
> the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.
A inquest is not to apportion blame, but to determine cause of death.
On Wed, 27 Jun, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
> so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
> allowed was one of accidental death?
>
> In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental,
I think that's it. I suspect it's the best that could have been hoped
for, given the shoddy way the whole thing has been handled to date.
David Martin wrote on 27/06/2007 12:55 +0100:
> On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm
>> "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
>> ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
>> statements on the events leading to the deaths."
>>
>> The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
>> "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
>> jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.
>
> So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
> so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
> allowed was one of accidental death?
>
> In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
> the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.
>
<pedant> It would be death by misadventure otherwise the difference
being whether it was completely unpredictable with no human control like
a branch falling off a tree (accident) or a legal human act that goes
wrong (misadventure)</pedant>
--
Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:
> On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm
>>
>> "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
>> ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
>> statements on the events leading to the deaths."
>>
>> The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
>> "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
>> jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.
>
> So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
> so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
> allowed was one of accidental death?
>
> In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
> the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.
That was my interpretation, too, and, indeed, is born out by the text of
the judgement now we've seen it. Unlawful killing, is what the jury very
clearly mean.
