Police go away

**The Stranger:Me** · 18th January 2007, 13:26

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened...

She won't say what happened...
No problem for me....

Ever suffered amnesia?

I have been involved 2 MV accidents which are a complete mystery to me and I would not be able to tell the police - or anyone else for that matter what happened.

**James Deuce** · 18th January 2007, 13:29

I've got the same problem CaN, but I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I'd killed someone.

**The Stranger:Me** · 18th January 2007, 13:44

Originally Posted by candor

What is she hiding or afraid of to not talk to Police.

Hello - am I the only one who has had amnesia in an accident??
As to what she is hiding (if anything) - you have led a very shetlered life haven't you? Ask Arthur Alan Thomas if he feels co-operating with the police (as he did) is such a good idea. It is prudent to seek legal advice in a case such as this.

**The Stranger:Me** · 18th January 2007, 13:51

Originally Posted by Jim2

I've got the same problem CaN, but I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I'd killed someone.

I assume that the problem to which you refer is amnesia. Just to be clear, that means you can't bloody remember right?
So now I am real intrigued - how would you tell the police what you didn't remember?

Or are you referring another problem which we share?

**ArcherWC** · 18th January 2007, 13:54

I have woken up at least twice in the ambo after MotoX crashes, with absolutly no idea how i got there, and one of them, i dont even remember going to the race.

**spudchucka** · 18th January 2007, 13:56

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.

There is a lot more to this case than what appears on face value so just let the system do its job and in the mean time take Chris Rock's advice.

**The Stranger:Me** · 18th January 2007, 14:01

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

I'm not quite sure thats strictly fair as everyone deserves a trial before their execution.

Besides - having a different opinion on sentencing and the appropriateness of capital punishment in some cases does not make most of us vigilantes. I prefer the term 'realists'.

No - the thing is 3 people are dead because of carelessness or incompetence OR an outside influence. If she parked the van on a slipway, left the handbrake off and let it roll into the sea and claimed it was an accident what would you think then? (I know what I would think). If she stupidly left the kids in the van in the hot sun while she was inside playing the pokies? While stupidity or incompetence is NOT a crime the consequences of both these things can become a chargeable offence.

A lot of traffic accidents are sufficiently badly explained to make me go hmmmm.... (prob not the case here) but I know that if I have my kids in the car OR I'm riding in an area highly likely to have others I take extra care.

We don't know the whole story. Perhaps she has a terrible accident history or something or maybe the Police think this was just a terrible accident thats never likely to happen again and are looking for a way of NOT charging her?

Regardless of this - 3 people in her care are DEAD and surely there MUST be an explanation or accounting.

Here is where I have a problem with a case such as this.
What purpose is served by punishing her?

Surely there should be a purpose to an action. Why take an action if there is no purpose?

So ok, if there is a purpose, take the action, but if there is none, leave her be.

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back, or make her drive better, or provide satisfaction for the family of hte deceased?
Perhaps there is some logic in removing a bad driver from the road so she can't do it to someone else, however, from what I read of the article she couold be back on the road in 6 months at most anyway.

**spudchucka** · 18th January 2007, 14:09

Originally Posted by CaN

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back,

By the same logic, why do we charge murderers?

**Squeak the Rat** · 18th January 2007, 14:09

Murder by definition is not accidental.

**spudchucka** · 18th January 2007, 14:14

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

Murder by definition is not accidental.

Negligence does not = accident.

**James Deuce** · 18th January 2007, 14:17

Originally Posted by CaN

I assume that the problem to which you refer is amnesia. Just to be clear, that means you can't bloody remember right?
So now I am real intrigued - how would you tell the police what you didn't remember?

Or are you referring another problem which we share?

Lol.

No, just the amnesia.

I lost the majority of three days prior to my "big" accident, and a good couple of days after, plus spots over the next 3 years or so.

I couldn't tell the Police (MOT it was then) what had happened, and didn't know my name for a bit. I didn't offer up any excuse though, because I didn't know what happened. Witnesses and crash scene investigation reconstructed the accident and it apparently wasn't my fault. The Cop suggested I didn't need to go to court as I wasn't being charged with anything, so I left it at that and so did they.

Can't fight what you don't know anything about.

**James Deuce** · 18th January 2007, 14:19

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

Murder by definition is not accidental.

Neither are 99% of road traffic "accidents".

**Skyryder** · 18th January 2007, 14:26

Originally Posted by CaN

Here is where I have a problem with a case such as this.
What purpose is served by punishing her?

Surely there should be a purpose to an action. Why take an action if there is no purpose?

So ok, if there is a purpose, take the action, but if there is none, leave her be.

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back, or make her drive better, or provide satisfaction for the family of the deceased?
Perhaps there is some logic in removing a bad driver from the road so she can't do it to someone else, however, from what I read of the article she could be back on the road in 6 months at most anyway.

Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution) Would you agree with your rationale if other members of the public are killed, a biker for example?

We are all held accountable in the eyes of the law for our actions where death and injury result. The police can use their desecration, but they need to be able to do this on the information given to them. Not on the lack of it.

Skyryder

**doc** · 18th January 2007, 14:30

Originally Posted by spudchucka

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.

There is a lot more to this case than what appears on face value so just let the system do its job and in the mean time take Chris Rock's advice.

Been undercover have we ? I agree all this is based on media again not having all the evidence. The outcome is not for any use to us, but justice must been seen to be done. So why does she (The effigy) wear a blindfold. Don't we have the right to remain silent or is that just on TV ?