# Woman killed in traffic accident - Brixton Hill 22nd of April



## story (Apr 22, 2008)

So what was all that hoo-haa then?

A woman got knocked down by a bus and was helicoptered out (junction of Effra Rd and St Matthew's Rd, about 6 pm). *fingers crossed she's okay..*

High Street blocked off, scuffles in the street, and "some rather heavy handed policing" according to my witness. (also about 6 pm).

Were the two things linked or coincidental?


----------



## billythefish (Apr 22, 2008)

story said:


> So what was all that hoo-haa then?
> 
> A woman got knocked down by a bus and was helicoptered out (junction of Effra Rd and St Matthew's Rd, about 6 pm). *fingers crossed she's okay..*
> 
> ...


It's on the Brixton Chit-chat... a woman was run over and killed by a prison van... one report was that she was a thirteen year old girl, another that she was one of the people that hang out by the Ritzy.

Someone attacked the prison van after the accident - the passenger window was smashed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 22, 2008)

Local info tells me this....Schoolgirl trapped under prison van....presumably detainees still in van added to the mix as far as the police were concerned. Add resulting road closure to existing road-mending closure and it all got a bit mad...I saw a number 2 bus, lost, well off-course, down a side-street and heaving with passengers and a frantic bus driver wondering how the hell to get back on course.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 22, 2008)

BBC say this..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7361651.stm


----------



## story (Apr 22, 2008)

Oh god how awful!


----------



## fjydj (Apr 22, 2008)

it may have been worse, there was a blue screen put up by the side of a prison van, with a car and two buses rammed up behind it... 
policing things like this must be tricky, people are curious and will go and have a look but with the road closed all the bus stops not working and they want to get home or whatever too. There was a massive queue of empty buses by the town hall, and cars being turned around.


----------



## CPCG (Apr 22, 2008)

Information from the police is that a young woman was in collision with a prison van, in front of the Ritzy. She has sadly died of her injuries. 

The scene is being treated as the scene of a crime, rather than a road traffic accident. This doesn't necessarily presume there has been a crime, but determines the standard to which evidence will be collected and explains the continuing hold-ups.

Edited to add: We understand that the driver of the vasn has been arrested and is being questioned.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 22, 2008)

I hope it wasn't connected, but the traffic light sequences seemed to have changed around Brixton and there's even less time for pedestrians to cross......so sad the accident victim didn't survive.


----------



## billythefish (Apr 22, 2008)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I hope it wasn't connected, but the traffic light sequences seemed to have changed around Brixton and there's even less time for pedestrians to cross......so sad the accident victim didn't survive.


True about the lights... the road's so wide right there too - I've often been caught out by vehicles turning from Acre Lane...


----------



## shygirl (Apr 22, 2008)

The woman who died was a well-known face in the town centre and the area outside the Ritzy.  If anyone out there knows anyone who actually witnessed the accident, try to encourage them to contact the police.  Unfortunately, the opportunity to collect names of witnesses might have been missed in the in the immediate aftermath.  People and friends who witnessed the accident were very upset and some missiles were thrown at the vehicles.  I guess the police felt that moving people on and protecting the victim's dignity was the top priority, so people eventually drifted off.  At times like this,however, we  need local officers to engage with people at the scene and encourage witness statements.  

The woman who died was pretty chaotic, but always friendly and affectionate with those around her.  Its so sad.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 22, 2008)

Fuck knows why London Tonight were reporting "a 13 year old girl is trapped under a prison van", imagine the many parents of any teenage girls who were out with their mates at that time, or coming back from school, they must have all been going frantic with worry if they had heard that on tv.
Stupid reporting, they should check their facts properly first.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 22, 2008)

Just came through - it's chaotic alright.  So very sad and actually very chilling to see that blue sheet.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 22, 2008)

That's sad.  I must have just missed that as I left M&S around 5.20 and was waiting for a bus and started hearing sirens by the time I got home, but thought nothing of it - as you do in Brixton


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Apr 22, 2008)

13 sounds like 30 I suppose, either way RIP.


----------



## via-strass (Apr 22, 2008)

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/latest-london-news/Driver-arrested-after-woman-dies.4009121.jp
The driver has been arrested according to this story.
A few people have posted what they saw in the Brixton chit-chat thread, including someone who reckoned they know who the victim was, the lady who wears a 'Marlboro' car racing jacket apparently.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 22, 2008)

There is another thread about the victim 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247965

Can we merge please and use her name? It seems a bit disrespectful not to.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2008)

The woman's name was Naomi, aka Gully. She was 30.

The Mail has the best report in the press:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=561416&in_page_id=1770

Seeing as the RIP thread got ruined by cheap point scoring, I'm bumping this thread for discussion of the event. Remember that when/if the case comes to court, speculation will have to cease. I've exorcised the bunfight and reopend the RIP thread here, which is for paying respects/remembering the deceased. NOT fighting.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> The woman's name was Naomi, aka Gully. She was 30.
> 
> The Mail has the best report in the press:
> 
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=561416&in_page_id=1770


You can just_ feel _the sympathy exuding out from the Daily Mail readers in the comments section:


> Stupid woman. I hope the driver is OK.
> 
> - Kris, Fife
> 
> ...


So there you have it: drunk and disorderly in street = deserve to die.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 23, 2008)

What a bunch of cunts on the comments section of the DM boards.


----------



## FoxyMKII (Apr 23, 2008)

Couldn't agree more......


----------



## Dan U (Apr 23, 2008)

they posted my comment calling them disgusting.

so get cracking!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 23, 2008)

Funny how you know perfectly well that people posting comments on the Daily Mail site are liable to be scumbags, but it can still shock you how repugnant they actually are.


----------



## innit (Apr 23, 2008)

Dan U said:


> they posted my comment calling them disgusting.
> 
> so get cracking!



nice one   I've left a comment too, not sure if they'll publish it though (I said I felt some of the previous comments should have been moderated)


----------



## gabi (Apr 23, 2008)

What month are we in again?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 23, 2008)

innit said:


> nice one   I've left a comment too, not sure if they'll publish it though (I said I felt some of the previous comments should have been moderated)



looks like mine hasnt got through, i tried so hard to be polite as well

ive never managed to get a comment published on the mail website


----------



## innit (Apr 23, 2008)

I don't think mine has made it through either.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 24, 2008)

Although, mysteriously Cllr Chris Cook's comments remain. IIRC he's a BNP supporting  goon and all round gobshite.


----------



## tommers (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> You can just_ feel _the sympathy exuding out from the Daily Mail readers in the comments section:
> So there you have it: drunk and disorderly in street = deserve to die.



fucking hell.  I know him.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 24, 2008)

can someone change the date in the thread title?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 24, 2008)

urban's getting flamed on ht tp://www.holymoly.co.uk/g/corner/government2media2whoever-70337.html about this

makes the daily mail comments look like hippies


----------



## Augie March (Apr 24, 2008)

Holy Moly said:
			
		

> Dead junkie? good for the van, drug scum cints
> 
> Dead junkie = result
> 
> One dead junkie, so what! Now if the van had mowed down a whole herd of the wasteful, thieving effluent that would be newsworthy.



Lovely bunch over there. 

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've read so far on her, Naomi was an alcoholic not a user.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2008)

jesus fucking christ

they make the Daily Mail seem compassionate.


----------



## innit (Apr 24, 2008)

Won't be going back to that site in a hurry


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 24, 2008)

innit.

still, come the day, we've got plenty of wall-space for the lot of 'em.


----------



## Augie March (Apr 24, 2008)

Who knew that a celebrity gossip site would be full of such angry right-wingers! 

*wonders if the Heat letter pages are this bad


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 24, 2008)

I was tempted to join in order to mass slaughter them with a suitable diatribe before concluding that as they can only manage to throw a couple of semi-literate sentences together between themselves there really isn't much point in anyone else making more of an effort than them towards making their failed-forum into something noteworthy of reading.

However, they're free to come here should they wish to have their sub-standard minds raped.


----------



## via-strass (Apr 25, 2008)

I was there only 5-10 minutes after the accident, an ambulance was there but the first cops (who were probably patrolling Brixton High St) were just arriving. There were already a lot of people looking on. I didn't see /anyone/ take a picture on their camera phone. Lots of people were watching from the raised grassy area in front of the Ritzy and on the pavement in front of that. More people were standing in the street on all sides of the van. It seemed like some of Naomi's friends / people who were already hanging out in front of Ritzy were a lot of the ones standing in the street. Just when I arrived several people were lying on the floor trying to see under the van. None of these were taking pictures, I am sure they were all trying to find out how Naomi was. 

At this point, (a couple of cops had arrived), the passenger window of the van had been broken. I saw maybe 3 or 4 people throw things at the van the whole time I was standing there, over about 20 minutes including someone who threw their drink (but not the container). A few people shouted things at the driver, but there was no 'chanting' let alone a 'chanting mob'. A lady bent back the drivers windscreen wipers. Although the driver looked very worried, I didn't see anyone try to get him out of the van, enter the van or specifically try to attack him physically. On several occasions as the police tried to push people back away from the van there were small scuffles. But there wasn't any 'riot', and although the situation was very tense, the amount of pushing there was never really looked as if it was going to become a confrontation between the people and the police.

I think that given the time of day there were a lot of people coming from the station or waiting for buses, and so there was quickly a huge amount of bystanders, but not a big gathering of furious people or ones who wanted to take on the police. As the police gradually pushed people back, first from the road, then the pavement and the grass, some of them objected to being pushed away, but there wasn't any violence. The police claimed that a medevac helicopter which was in the air was going to land next to the van (although I don't think it did), so people wanted to make space for it.

I am posting this since I have seen coverage, some of it linked to from here, mentioning things like mob violence, chanting, riots etc. Of course some people, including Naomi's friends, were very angry, but given the circumstances of the incident, not hugely more than people often get at traffic accidents. The police may have (and probably did) push people out of the way, but not unlike what you would expect in some crowd control situations. There was a very big number of officers there very soon after the first ones arrived, perhaps they thought some kind of riot was likely and so acted very fast.

Partly in response to some debate on the other thread, but I thought this was a better place for it.


----------



## via-strass (Apr 25, 2008)

To correct myself slightly, the only cameras I saw were being held up by people when they though someone at the front of the crowd was getting pushed etc by police. NOT taking pictures of the driver or the underneath of the van.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 25, 2008)

Media reports in "not entirely reliable" shocker ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Media reports in "not entirely reliable" shocker ...



You'd think they'd learn their lesson about buying info from coppers at the scene, wouldn't you?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 27, 2008)

via-strass said:


> I was there only 5-10 minutes after the accident, an ambulance was there but the first cops (who were probably patrolling Brixton High St) were just arriving. There were already a lot of people looking on. I didn't see /anyone/ take a picture on their camera phone. Lots of people were watching from the raised grassy area in front of the Ritzy and on the pavement in front of that. More people were standing in the street on all sides of the van. It seemed like some of Naomi's friends / people who were already hanging out in front of Ritzy were a lot of the ones standing in the street. Just when I arrived several people were lying on the floor trying to see under the van. None of these were taking pictures, I am sure they were all trying to find out how Naomi was.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 27, 2008)

Thank for this info, via strauss.  Who's responsible for circulating all the muck about mobs, cameras. etc?  Makes me sick, demonise and trash brixton, yet again.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 29, 2008)

For the past few days there has been a big banner reading "Avenge Naomi, killed by the system" by the tree where people have been laying flowers etc.

I don't know who put it there but I think it's pretty crass to use a tragic incident like this to try and make some kind of political point.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 29, 2008)

teuchter said:


> For the past few days there has been a big banner reading "Avenge Naomi, killed by the system" by the tree where people have been laying flowers etc.
> 
> I don't know who put it there but I think it's pretty crass to use a tragic incident like this to try and make some kind of political point.


 

That's been there since the day after the accident I think


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 29, 2008)

On the RIP thread it says it was anarchists' and not her friends' wording.


----------



## ajdown (Apr 29, 2008)

teuchter said:


> For the past few days there has been a big banner reading "Avenge Naomi, killed by the system" by the tree where people have been laying flowers etc.



Any idea what 'the system' is that is supposed to be responsible?  I'm kinda new round here.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 29, 2008)

you'd have to ask the people writing the banner, I suppose. 

you could read it as the van driver being part of the penal system and therefore a fascist racist nazi bent on killing anyone on the list or maybe a system that fails its vulnerable members by allowing them to fall through the net...  *shrugs*  

Rabble rousing, using the accident for their own aims?


----------



## ajdown (Apr 29, 2008)

Papingo said:


> Rabble rousing, using the accident for their own aims?


Unfortunately that was the conclusion I'd come to.

It all seemed a bit Wolfie Smith to me...


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 29, 2008)

there is more on the RIP thread, as I mentioned earlier.  have a look there.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 29, 2008)

Well, the prison system is over-stretched, and they have to move many prisoners around, so the drivers are stressed, so I guess that could be a part of the system's contribution...


----------



## Red Faction (Jul 12, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7503074.stm


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

Blimey. Here's the full BBC article:



> Murder charge for prison van man
> 
> The accused will appear before magistrates charged with murder
> 
> ...


Who the fuck are "Serco Court Escort Services"?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

In answer to my own question, Serco have their own, slightly ominous sounding, strapline:


> Working with governments to reduce crime and reoffending, control immigration and prevent terrorism
> http://www.serco.com/markets/homeaffairs/offendermanagement/escorting/index.asp



They've got a mission statement too:


> To be the leading provider of Prisoner Escort & Custody Services through the development and motivation of our staff, delivering prisoners on time and managing them at courts: keeping them decently, legally and securely at all times.


----------



## paolo (Jul 12, 2008)

Choosing my words very carefully - remembering our correct system of innocent until proven guilty - I think it's a reasonable _charge_, based on the various reports at the time.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm baffled. How does Serco Court Escort Services "prevent terrorism"?


----------



## paolo (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm baffled. How does Serco Court Escort Services "prevent terrorism"?



It's marketing bollocks
.
(In the scale of severity, quite distasteful marketing bollocks)


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2008)

Driver charged with murder: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=256820



> The driver of a prison van is due to appear in court accused of murdering a woman by smashing into her outside a town hall.
> 
> Andrew Curtis, 48, of Serco Court Escort Services, will appear at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court in south London, charged with the murder of Nyaraui (Naomi) Benjamin, 34, in Brixton Road, Brixton, on April 22, police said.
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=215319&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2008)

As I posted on another thread before seeing this one had been bumped:

For murder there has to be an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. For manslaughter there has to be an unlawful act which kills (i.e. there does not need to be that intention).

It is not unusual in cases where the evidence is more likely to end up as a manslaughter conviction to be charged as murder initially (a Court can always reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter, it cannot do the opposite), although in this case, where there has been some significant time to get all the evidence sorted out and reviewed by the CPS in detail, it would be usual for the charge to reflect the outcome genuinely supported by the evidence.

I have not seen anything which suggests whether the driver has given any account in interviews. If he has not then this charge would not be surprising if there is any suggestion from witnesses / scene examination / CCTV that he has deliberately collided with Naomi the police and CPS will pursue the case to the Courts, with a murder charge, as that is the only place where the driver can be forced to provide any explanation they wish to or face the consequences. It is not the role of the police/CPS to second guess what the defendant may say in their defence.

Do not be surprised if this does end up as manslaughter or a total acquittal at Court, especially if there is a defence which has not been heard yet.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm baffled. How does Serco Court Escort Services "prevent terrorism"?


That strapline belongs to their Home Affairs Division which is bigger than just the prisoner transport bit.  They (and a large number of other companies) provide all sorts of technology and other systems and services to sell to the police.  Do you think the police invent and make all their stuff themselves?  

And prisoner transport services being provided by the private sector is absolutely nothing new.  It's been around for at least twenty years.  Why the apparent outrage?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

detective-boy;7756201]They (and a large number of other companies) provide all sorts of technology and other systems and services to sell to the police.[/quote]Could you give me some examples of what "terrorism-preventing" technology Serco Court Escort Services has invented please?[quote=detective-boy said:


> Do you think the police invent and make all their stuff themselves?


 At no point did I even_ suggest_ anything of the sort.

It's really annoying when people try and put words in my mouth, you know. "Apparent outrage" my arse.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> That strapline belongs to their Home Affairs Division which is bigger than just the prisoner transport bit.


Actually, it's right there on its "Court Escort and Custody Services" page. 

Right at the top. In bold text. And highlighted.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> Actually, it's right there on its "Court Escort and Custody Services" page.
> 
> Right at the top. In bold text. And highlighted.


And on every page under their Home Affairs division ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you give me some examples of what "terrorism-preventing" technology Serco Court Escort Services has invented please?


Read their site.  The stuff I noticed at the ACPO conference exhibition this year was focusing on secure mobile communication technology.



> It's really annoying when people try and put words in my mouth, you know. "Apparent outrage" my arse.


I know.  Why don't you ban me?  Oh no, I forgot.  Apparently you don't get banned for putting words in people's mouths here, do you?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> And on every page under their Home Affairs division ...


Yes. But it's on their "Court Escort and Custody Services" page in bold text and at the very top, *clearly associating* those services with their "terrorism" statement. 

Oh, and I'm still waiting for some examples of the "terrorism-preventing" technology Serco Court Escort Services has invented, but something tells me you're just going to stumble around this thread like a bear with a bad head today.



detective-boy said:


> I know. Why don't you ban me? Oh no, I forgot. Apparently you don't get banned for putting words in people's mouths here, do you?


Get over yourself or go out for a walk or something. Jeez. Talk about bad tempered.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2008)

Oh stop it both of you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> Blimey. Here's the full BBC article:
> 
> Who the fuck are "Serco Court Escort Services"?



Serco have the contract to transport prisoners between prisons and the courts.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 12, 2008)

.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> Serco have the contract to transport prisoners between prisons and the courts.



This is the case.  I doubt very much that they transport "proper" terrorist prisoners (as opposed to girls who write bad poetry), though.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2008)

nick h. said:


> I was going to say something about the driver's defence - something that he said after the incident which was related to me by a PCSO. But now that's he's been charged, the sub judice rule applies. Does this mean I should keep quiet?


Probably.


----------



## hendo (Jul 12, 2008)

ymu said:


> Probably.


 
Definitely.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> Serco have the contract to transport prisoners between prisons and the courts.


I understand that, but I was trying to establish what  "terrorism-preventing" technology they'd come up with seeing as that's what they were bigging up in bold on their  'Escort Services' homepage.

But it's no big deal.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2008)

editor said:


> I understand that, but I was trying to establish what "terrorism-preventing" technology they'd come up with seeing as that's what they were bigging up in bold on their 'Escort Services' homepage.



The Escort crowd probably have nothing at all to do with the prevention of terrorism, but other bits of Serco have various contracts to do with what might be spun as "terror prevention":

http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2007/eborders.asp
http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2005/homelandsecurity.asp


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2008)

editor said:


> In answer to my own question, Serco have their own, slightly ominous sounding, strapline:
> 
> 
> They've got a mission statement too:



  Its interesting how it says "working with governments to reduce crime and reoffending,control immigration and prevent terrorism"

  Notice where the comma is and how this implies immigration and terrorism are close to each other.You could read this as implying that controlling immigration will prevent terrorism.(Despite the fact that the tube bombers were homegrown terrorists).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 13, 2008)

Gramsci said:


> Notice where the comma is and how this implies immigration and terrorism are close to each other.You could read this as implying that controlling immigration will prevent terrorism.


Only if you're paranoid ... I don't pretend to be an expert on punctuation, but as far as I can see it seperates two of the three categories:  (a) crime and reoffending; (b) control immigration and (c) prevent terrorism.

If you are listing three things, two will be seperated by a comma, the third by "and".  That does not in any way imply that any combination of them are connected surely.  

You _could_ make an assumption that they were in descending order of importance, but that may or may not be accurate - as far as you can tell from the face of them they could simply be in random order or because the marketing geeks reckon it "scans" better in that order or something.


----------



## jcsd (Jul 13, 2008)

I disagree the murder charge is hardly routine

There's got to be an intent to cause Grievous bodily harm or death for a murder charge to stick or to for the actions to be so reckless that GBH or death are a virtual certainty.

Murder is 2 steps up from deaty by dangerous driving, it's rare enough to see death by dangerous driving as an alternative to mansalughter let alone murder. Only in very excpetional cases are people charged with manslaughter resulting from road accidents.

Though overcharging does go on, the CPS have strict guidlines about charging people with the apporpoiate offence and there's got to be at least a prima facie case for murder here.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 13, 2008)

Gramsci said:


> Its interesting how it says "working with governments to reduce crime and reoffending,control immigration and prevent terrorism"
> 
> Notice where the comma is and how this implies immigration and terrorism are close to each other.You could read this as implying that controlling immigration will prevent terrorism.(Despite the fact that the tube bombers were homegrown terrorists).



you'd have an oxford comma after 'immigration'?  yuck!  begone with your american punctuation habits.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 13, 2008)

How is due process proceeding?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 13, 2008)

jcsd said:


> ... or to for the actions to be so reckless that GBH or death are a virtual certainty.


Recklessness is not sufficient for murder.  Intent is required.  Recklessness may be sufficient for manslaughter but even then it must amount to "gross negligence" - i.e. to be way beyond what would normally be expected.


----------



## Pip (Jul 14, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> you'd have an oxford comma after 'immigration'?  yuck!  begone with your american punctuation habits.



That's American punctuation? I didn't know there was a difference. You're making me worried now.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Recklessness is not sufficient for murder.  Intent is required.  Recklessness may be sufficient for manslaughter but even then it must amount to "gross negligence" - i.e. to be way beyond what would normally be expected.



So how does that make a murder charge routine for what should be a manslaughter charge?

There must be some _suspicion_ of intent, surely, for a murder charge to be levelled?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So how does that make a murder charge routine for what should be a manslaughter charge?
> 
> There must be some _suspicion_ of intent, surely, for a murder charge to be levelled?


He didn't say it was routine - he said it wasn't uncommon for murder to be the charge when manslaughter was the more likely conviction. The charge wouldn't be murder if the CPS didn't think there was _some_ chance of proving intent etc.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

ymu said:


> He didn't say it was routine - he said it wasn't uncommon for murder to be the charge when manslaughter was the more likely conviction.



That's splitting hairs, though... you're right he didn't say 'routine' but 'not uncommon' isn't very different.



> The charge wouldn't be murder if the CPS didn't think there was _some_ chance of proving intent etc.



This is why I asked... because I don't understand the reasoning for that. 

Surely the CPS must need to have a suspicion of intent to think there was a chance of proving it.

So is DB saying that in the case of any premature death - murder is the first charge that is levelled?

Or is there something about this case that is specific?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That's splitting hairs, though... you're right he didn't say 'routine' but 'not uncommon' isn't very different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where has he said they don't need a suspicion of intent? 

They do need to have a reason to believe that it was murder, they just don't need to have a good chance of proving it in court because the charge can be down-graded to manslaughter if they fail to prove intent (rather than acquittal being the only option).

ie (semantics) They do not routinely charge people with murder when they know it's manslaughter - but it's not uncommon for a murder charge to be brought even if they think that a jury is more likely to convict of manslaughter.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 14, 2008)

.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

ymu said:


> Where has he said they don't need a suspicion of intent?


 
He didn't.. that's why I'm asking him about it.



> They do need to have a reason to believe that it was murder, they just don't need to have a good chance of proving it in court because the charge can be down-graded to manslaughter if they fail to prove intent (rather than acquittal being the only option).


 
Yeah. DB said that earlier.

So... do you know what the suspicion is?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

ymu said:


> ie (semantics) They do not routinely charge people with murder when they know it's manslaughter - but it's not uncommon for a murder charge to be brought even if they think that a jury is more likely to convict of manslaughter.


 
There is a difference between not having intent and not proving intent.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2008)

nick h. said:


> <snipped>


Didn't you already say that way back up the thread? If you want to give more reasons which might prejudice the trial, can't you just wait until it's over? 

There's no need to cause problems for the site and I'm sure you'd be disgusted with yourself if you jeopardised the prosecution. It's good news that a murder charge has been brought at all - let them get on with trying to prove it, unless you have information that you think the prosecution ought to have.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

ymu said:


> It's good news that a murder charge has been brought at all


 
Why is it good news?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So... do you know what the suspicion is?


Not being in on the investigation, no. But you only need to read the accounts of the incident to know why, surely?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Why is it good news?


Because some eye-witness accounts suggest that there was intent to harm. I'm glad that this will be tested in court.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

ymu said:


> Not being in on the investigation, no. But you only need to read the accounts of the incident to know why, surely?


 


ymu said:


> Because some eye-witness accounts suggest that there was intent to harm. I'm glad that this will be tested in court.


 
Fair enough.. I did a bit more reading and I can see what you meant. Not sure as I'd see it as good news, though.

The impression I was getting from the reports was that the driver didn't know she was still in front of his van.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 14, 2008)

.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 14, 2008)

.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2008)

.


----------



## lighterthief (Jul 14, 2008)

nick h. said:


> Can I say that I think he is guilty of murder?


Should probably just jail him now IMO, spare the expense and hassle of a trial etc.


----------



## shygirl (Jul 14, 2008)

Nick, I think you're being really irresponsible here - are you trying to jeopardise the trial.  Let's just wait and see.  By all means debate the law, but statements you've made could surely be detrimental the trial. 

And what a far-fetched analysis of the reason behind the murder charge being down Musker/police wanting to stage a PR exercise! in the name of community relations.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 14, 2008)

Sorry, I've probably been thinking about this far too much. To be honest I still can't really think rationally about her all squished under the wheels of that damn truck. I'll go and delete my posts.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 14, 2008)

Good move. No speculation/rumours please people!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That's splitting hairs, though... you're right he didn't say 'routine' but 'not uncommon' isn't very different.


As is often the case with the law, precision is important.  Routine and not uncommon are NOT the same thing at all.

It is NOT routine to charge murder if all the evidence shows that there is no intent (or, at least, that there is insufficient on which a conviction is more likely than not - the CPS's "evidential sufficiency" standard).

It is not uncommon though, where the defence have not provided an account, for it to be charged (on the basis of the thus far uncontested witness / scientific / etc. evidence) even though the investigators believe that there may well be a defence account which will make it manslaughter (or even less).  This is often the case where the defence have chosen not to provide the police with an account in interview - the police might _guess_ what the defendant will say at court (they may even have been told off the record), but they can't make decisions on that basis.  It is the dilemma for a suspect in police custody - staying silent in interview may be the long-term best advice ... but it may mean that you end up spending months on remand for a serious charge when giving your account _may_ convince the police / CPS that it was an accident / it was self-defence or whatever your defence is ...

(NB:  I have absolutely no knowledge whether or not the driver provided any account to police in this case - the above discussion is about hypothetical / other cases, not this one specifically).


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Only if you're paranoid ... I don't pretend to be an expert on punctuation, but as far as I can see it seperates two of the three categories:  (a) crime and reoffending; (b) control immigration and (c) prevent terrorism.
> 
> If you are listing three things, two will be seperated by a comma, the third by "and".  That does not in any way imply that any combination of them are connected surely.
> 
> You _could_ make an assumption that they were in descending order of importance, but that may or may not be accurate - as far as you can tell from the face of them they could simply be in random order or because the marketing geeks reckon it "scans" better in that order or something.



 The actual sentence put crime and reoffending together then immigration and  
terrorism. As we all know immigration and terrorism are put together by the government.Thats the justification for stricter border controls and ID cards.(though that is one of several arguments government uses.The threat of terror argument is used to shut people up as they dont want to be seen as soft on "terror".)I dont think Im being paranoid.Seems to me from looking at Sercos website that its full of New Labour speak.I do find this slightly creepy as this is only a "service provider" not a policy maker.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> That's American punctuation? I didn't know there was a difference. You're making me worried now.



Im no expert on grammer or spelling.As an ordinary joe the way the sentence reads is that controlling immigration and terror are associated activities.

All the highlighted in red piece had to say is that Serco provides services to the government in the security area.Which is what Serco does.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2008)

As far as charging someone with murder or attempted murder I agree with DBoy here.I was a witness (years ago) for attempted murder.When it got to court it went down to GBH.I was not that pleased as the only reason me and and my friend agreed to be witnesses was that it was (initially) such a serious case.Two of them got off and one got a short sentence for GBH.The police dealing with the case werent that pleased either.

 Just because someone is charged with something really serious doesnt mean it will end up like that by the time it gets to court.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2008)

Gramsci said:


> I was not that pleased as the only reason me and and my friend agreed to be witnesses was that it was (initially) such a serious case.


Bit of a derail ... but GBH is just as serious as murder / attempted murder in many cases - if there is an intent to cause realy serious harm, it is often an accident of fate and nothing else which makes this case a GBH (or even an attempted GBH) and that one a murder - sometimes a millimetre or two, or the skills of a paramedic or surgeon.  Sadly the sentence don't always refelect that fact!


----------



## TopCat (Jul 22, 2008)

Have they let him off yet?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2008)

Trial's not till October - starting on the 17th.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 22, 2008)

...


----------



## pboi (Dec 14, 2008)

sad death. heart breaking pictures.  did she not get the right help? or did she not take the help offered?


too many pissed people hang around le brix all day, needs to be cleaned up. along with the drugs!


----------



## Jonti (Dec 14, 2008)

You may "clean up" the area so it looks tareblee naice.

But I'm not sure how that would help those folks you'd like to clean away.


----------



## pboi (Dec 14, 2008)

i dont care how it looks. i do care about the people hanging about all day taking drugs / getting pissed and falling into vans


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 14, 2008)

She didn't fall into a van. She was dancing in front of the stationary vehicle and then it ran her over. That's why the driver was arrested on the charge of murder. The allegation is that it wasn't an accident.


----------



## pboi (Dec 14, 2008)

that is fucked up


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 14, 2008)

Well looking at the history of mankind's inhumanity to mankind that's the sort of method some people might like to use to 'cleanse' the streets of people they find unacceptable.


----------



## lighterthief (Dec 14, 2008)

When does this court case begin, does anyone know?


----------



## Mind (Dec 14, 2008)

pboi said:


> that is fucked up



What is fucked up is that she was left to take care of herself when she was clearly incapable of doing so.
If the stories I have heard are true (and certainly the neighbour's comments in the slide show seem to verify this) she left her kid satarving at home while she went to have a drink with her "friends" in the town centre. 

Not the behaviour of someone who is mentally healthy. 

What baffles me is that she had a large family that clearly felt this was someone else's problem.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who come from Caribbean or African cultures, where there is no equivalent of social services, quickly sink into that awful mindset that it is some official person/institution's duty to take care of them or their family when things go wrong.

They really believe that the state/their local councillor/Gordon Brown /Sharon Shoesmith or her equivalent is going to come down and make  everything ok.

Poor Van Driver. 
From everything I've heard and know, he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and not concentrating hard enough.

That people really believe because he was a white security van driver he must also be a secret fascist and murderer is disappointing.... and typical.


----------



## pboi (Dec 14, 2008)

I am gonna blame Haringey!! ( bad joke )


----------



## Jonti (Dec 15, 2008)

It is a great shame you cannot see the look of visceral disgust on my face on reading your sentiments, Mind.

Do you actually have any real knowledge of her friends and family, or perhaps you thought this thread a handy place to  to air your filthy mind?





Mind said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how people who come from Caribbean or African cultures ... quickly sink into that awful mindset that it is some official person/institution's duty to take care of them or their family when things go wrong.


What amazes me is how quickly some folks leap to air their nauseating attitudes even in the face of a tragic death. 



> Poor Van Driver.
> From everything I've heard and know, he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and not concentrating hard enough.


Perhaps he was badly trained and didn't have a clue what was going on. After all, he only had to patiently wait a while -- Naomi had regularly danced in front of the traffic at that place.

Let's hope the inquest is able to establish why he was not aware of this particular hazard on the route, or, if he had been delayed in this way before, why he chose to respond with a potentially homicidal course of action. 

That people really believe because Naomi was one of the street-life she must also be fair game for running down and killing is disappointing.... and typical of a certain kind of white-trash, fascist mindset, if I may make the observation


----------



## Mind (Dec 15, 2008)

Jonti said:


> It is a great shame you cannot see the look of visceral disgust on my face on reading your sentiments, Mind.


Feel free to look disgusted.
You make the mistake of thinking that I give a shit what your sentiments are.



Jonti said:


> Do you actually have any real knowledge of her friends and family, or perhaps you thought this thread a handy place to  to air your filthy mind?


Perhaps you should go to the link and read the comments that the neighbour who took the photos attributed to her father made before jumping to stupid conclusions.

I am perfectly entitled to have opinions.  We all have people in our family who have problems.  It is absolutely disgusting that her own father would say that and if you think that is normal, then it goes a long way to explain why there are so many troubled people living on our streets today.
Perhaps you should try visiting a well-knit African/Caribbean Community to see how they do things rather than viewing the dysfunctional ones as normal?



Jonti said:


> What amazes me is how quickly some folks leap to air their nauseating attitudes even in the face of a tragic death.


You mean nauseating attitudes like a white van driver must have deliberately killed a drunk black woman? I totally agree.



Jonti said:


> Perhaps he was badly trained and didn't have a clue what was going on. After all, he only had to patiently wait a while -- Naomi had regularly danced in front of the traffic at that place.


Yes of course.
And the fact that loads of people regularly watched her recklessly endanger her life, yourself included and thought it was amusing and DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT has nothing to with it right?



Jonti said:


> Let's hope the inquest is able to establish why he was not aware of this particular hazard on the route,


I think you'd be hard pressed to find a jury of 12 people that's going to blame the security company for not having a list of people in the country who may like to dance in the middle of the streets for van drivers to be aware of.
Which is of course a shame.
Personally, i think they should have put her picture in the Highway Code and made it part of the theory test.




Jonti said:


> That people really believe because Naomi was one of the street-life she must also be fair game for running down and killing is disappointing....


Well, if you feel that blaming her family and the social services and the local community for failing her rather than the person who most likely ran over her equates to that, then I think you may not be familiar with the terms "logic" and "argument".



Jonti said:


> and typical of a certain kind of white-trash, fascist mindset, if I may make the observation


Quite why you are bringing your own family background into this is beyond me, Jonti.
As an African woman who is proud of her heritage, I find it sad that so many white people refer to themselves as trash.


----------



## lighterthief (Dec 15, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Perhaps he was badly trained and didn't have a clue what was going on. After all, he only had to patiently wait a while -- Naomi had regularly danced in front of the traffic at that place.
> 
> Let's hope the inquest is able to establish why he was not aware of this particular hazard on the route, or, if he had been delayed in this way before, why he chose to respond with a potentially homicidal course of action.


Who knows how it really happened though, hey?  Not the cleverest of ideas to dance about in the traffic.  I doubt the van driver is feeling great about what happened.


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 15, 2008)

Is this the right place for a bunfight?


----------



## Mind (Dec 15, 2008)

lighterthief said:


> Who knows how it really happened though, hey?  Not the cleverest of ideas to dance about in the traffic.  I doubt the van driver is feeling great about what happened.



Exactly.

What is shocking is that no one is asking the obvious questions.
1) Why did the large family she obviously had leave leave her to roam around on the streets when she had a mental health disorder? 

2) Why did social services feel this woman would be better off drinking heavily in the town centre rather than being in care and nursed to health?
They clearly knew she was not in a state to look after her children.

3) Why didn't members of the local community stop her from jumping and dancing in front of traffic so often? It wasn't the first time she had done so.
The fact is that to them she was merely a source of amusement.
_Ha! Ha! Isn't Naomi such a character, look at the way she jumps in front of dangerous Brixton traffic. The average pedestrian is so careful as drivers around here are a bit rough, but I bet Naomi gives those drivers a right fright, ha ha ha! " _ they no doubt said.

And now she is dead.

Isn't it frightening how those so quick to jump to the conclusion that the driver deliberately killed her had seen her dance in front of traffic countless number of times and did *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING *to stop her?

Now like a medieval lynch mob they are looking for the outsider just passing through to lay the blame on and punish rather than examining themselves and asking "What could I have done to prevent this?"

Sickening stuff.


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind said:


> 1) Why did the large family she obviously had leave leave her to roam around on the streets when she had a mental health disorder?



Mind, this bit of U75 comes up when you search google for naomi and brixton. You don't need to be logged in to read the Brixton forum. Her family and friends might well read it. Do you really think it's a good idea to discuss this on the internet where anybody could read it?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind - what makes you think that Naomi could have been sectioned? Because that's what you're talking about.

From my recollection from past discussion with you, you're not the most...ermmm...understanding person when it comes to mental health anyway, so I find it rather ironic that you're getting het up now!


----------



## Mind (Dec 15, 2008)

ovaltina said:


> Mind, this bit of U75 comes up when you search google for naomi and brixton. You don't need to be logged in to read the Brixton forum. Her family and friends might well read it. Do you really think it's a good idea to discuss this on the internet where anybody could read it?



What an odd thing to say. Do you really think that people must be protected at all costs from any assertion that they did not take responsibility when they should have?

Good grief.
It's been well over 6 months, there are no family names, no personal addresses, just a question asking why they abandoned their daughter/partner/sister/ and you think they must be spared that too?
Are you for real? 

These are questions that they should ask themselves.
They MUST be examining their consciences as should everyone who saw that woman, laughed and assumed that someone else was responsible. 

But no, let's not ask any difficult questions. The important thing here is that nobody _feels bad _that someone has died or does any sort of thinking that might prevent this sort of thing happening again in our area.

Instead let's all go have a pint in the pub in Naomi's memory and have a rant at Daily Mail readers/ white van drivers/ the police /the system - because that's what we do around here isn't it?

That's what makes everything _ok._



Pathetic.


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind said:


> Pathetic.



This is a real person who died and there are real people affected, who will be going through emotions you can barely imagine.

Villifying and even explicitly blaming the family on an open bulletin board is a nasty thing to do. And for what - some point about 'she should have been helped'?  straight back at you.


----------



## Mind (Dec 15, 2008)

ovaltina said:


> This is a real person who died and there are real people affected, who will be going through emotions you can barely imagine.



Thanks, but they are not emotions I can barely imagine.
They are things that I have been through myself before and is the reason why I work with in the voluntary sector, although with younger people not adults with mental health issues. I mention my work frequently in my posts.



ovaltina said:


> And for what - some point about 'she should have been helped'?  straight back at you.


Yeah whatever, It is people like me who work dealing with the fallout of situations like this. So excuse me if I sound a tad sanctimonious, but I don't need to be lectured by people who spend their lives on urban75 having a chat because I am offending the purity of the messageboard.

So save your "straight back at you" for someone who is waiting for your validation.

Has it ever occurred to you that it is because people keep silent rather than speaking out against the families that some people never wake up to their responsibility?

If writing on the messageboard means that another relative of a person living on the street wakes up to that responsiblity then it would have been worth it.
Nothing can be done to save Naomi now. Rather than worrying about what her family might think if we point out THE OBVIOUS TRUTH to them think about who else is out there that can be helped and save your crocodile tears and faux-compassion.


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind said:


> THE OBVIOUS TRUTH



Is that you should be exposed as a moron, for reasons that are too fucking obvious to explain.

And now I'm in a bunfight too.  I'm leaving the thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind said:


> I work with in the voluntary sector, although with younger people .


----------



## Jonti (Dec 15, 2008)

Mind said:


> You make the mistake of thinking that I give a shit what your sentiments are.




I can read. You've gone to great lengths carefully to choose your insulting and shit-stirring words. Not what someone who honestly doesn't give a shit would do.

You silly old goat


----------



## Jonti (Dec 15, 2008)

Jonti said:


> ... Do you actually have any real knowledge of her friends and family ... ?


Well?


----------



## nick h. (Dec 16, 2008)

This thread is getting uncomfortably close to apportioning culpability to people other than the Serco driver who is charged with murder. His trial starts on April 27th. Hadn't we better keep quiet until the verdict? I'm sure the circumstances which led to Naomi being in the road will be dwelt on by the defence, so the last thing we need is for Urban to be spreading mis/disinformation. Maybe mods should do some pruning.


----------



## pboi (Dec 16, 2008)

why keep quiet? we dont influence anything.


talk about self importance


----------



## Crispy (Dec 16, 2008)

We get quoted in national papers, many journalists read the boards and use posts here as sources for stories. It can and does happen.


----------



## nick h. (Dec 16, 2008)

Well, there's this thing called a "jury", which is why there's a sub judice rule. And Urban posts tend to appear at the top of Google searches. For example: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=naomi+serco+murder&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


----------



## SK. (Apr 28, 2009)

I see there has been an update to this sad story and the court case for the Driver is currently underway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8021298.stm


----------



## nick h. (Apr 28, 2009)

The case is predicted to take 3 weeks.


----------



## steveblue (May 7, 2009)

*To keep this balanced, here is the defence case from PA newswire*

A prison van driver on trial for murder after running over a woman who walked
into the path of his vehicle told a jury today that he could not see her.
 Andrew Curtis, 49, was behind the wheel of the Serco prison van when it ran
over and killed Nyaraui Benjamin, 34, in April last year.
 Jurors have heard that "eccentric" Miss Benjamin danced in front of the
vehicle at a busy junction in Brixton, south London.
 Curtis told the Old Bailey that he twice sounded his horn after he had been
forced to stop when she blocked his way.
 He said she walked towards him and "thumped" the front of the vehicle, threw
him a "prankish smile or kiss", and pulled up a windscreen wiper.
 Curtis said he had already considered whether it was a "decoy or ambush" and
decided it was not.
 He said he last saw her to the left side of his vehicle and believed she had
moved on to the pavement when he drove off.
 "If she was in front of my vehicle as we now know I could not see her and I
did not see her," said Curtis.
 "I was satisfied she was no longer in front of my vehicle."
 A witness's claim that he accelerated towards Miss Benjamin when she held up
the windscreen wiper was "definitely and quite categorically not the case", he
said.
 Evidence from another witness that her hands could be seen held up in front of
the vehicle was a "mistake", he added.
 Judge Martin Stephens asked him about what he had done to take into account the
presence of the "eccentric person" in front of him.
 Curtis said: "It depends on what they are doing. The fact that it was only a
windscreen wiper - it didn't give me any further cause for concern."
 The driver, of Orpington, Kent, denies murder and an alternative charge of
manslaughter.


----------



## ricbake (May 11, 2009)

Not Guilty - ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8043950.stm


----------



## nick h. (May 11, 2009)

That's a surprise. I thought his defence (as reported earlier in this thread) was rather weak and would be contradicted by witness statements and video showing him rocking on the clutch to frighten her away. The police expended vast resources on investigating this, and now.....nothing.


----------



## RaverDrew (May 11, 2009)

cunt


----------



## jæd (May 11, 2009)

nick h. said:


> That's a surprise. I thought his defence (as reported earlier in this thread) was rather weak and would be contradicted by witness statements and video showing him rocking on the clutch to frighten her away. The police expended vast resources on investigating this, and now.....nothing.



People should be convicted based on the level of outrage on U75...! Anything else is a travesty of teh justice...!


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2009)

nick h. said:


> That's a surprise. I thought his defence (as reported earlier in this thread) was rather weak and would be contradicted by witness statements and video showing him rocking on the clutch to frighten her away. The police expended vast resources on investigating this, and now.....nothing.



I know, and to not even get a manslaughter conviction is somewhat bizarre given the reported facts, but then of course we dont know everything about the case, what the jury did and did not see etc.


----------



## nick h. (May 11, 2009)

The Worthing Herald says "the jury queried whether murder and manslaughter were the only charges applicable to the case".  It seems they were. Does that mean the CPS were confident that nothing less than manslaughter was appropriate?


----------



## ricbake (May 11, 2009)

Kizmet said:


> Fair enough.. I did a bit more reading and I can see what you meant. Not sure as I'd see it as good news, though.
> 
> The impression I was getting from the reports was that the driver didn't know she was still in front of his van.





TopCat said:


> Have they let him off yet?





pboi said:


> i dont care how it looks. i do care about the people hanging about all day taking drugs / getting pissed and falling into vans





Mrs Magpie said:


> She didn't fall into a van. She was dancing in front of the stationary vehicle and then it ran her over. That's why the driver was arrested on the charge of murder. The allegation is that it wasn't an accident.





lighterthief said:


> Who knows how it really happened though, hey?  Not the cleverest of ideas to dance about in the traffic.  I doubt the van driver is feeling great about what happened.



I do not think that justice or Naomi have been treated well by this trial and it really isn't a surprise that it has come out this way. I don't believe it was appropriate to make the charge murder, perhaps manslaughter. Naomi was killed by dangerous driving, the idea that she fell or threw herself under the van is ridiculous. I do not think that any good would have been served by locking up the driver, but I do beleive his aboration cost Naomi her life and I believe he was at fault and this trial has now vindicated him.

Bit sad all round

RIP Nyaraui Benjamin


----------



## nick h. (May 11, 2009)

The CPS must have thought there was intent to go for the murder charge. I wonder why? Perhaps they thought the driver could see her and lost his temper?  I don't suppose we'll ever find out. This will all go into the Brixton rumour and conspiracy mill.


----------



## lighterthief (May 11, 2009)

ricbake said:


> I do not think that any good would have been served by locking up the driver, but I do beleive his aboration cost Naomi her life and I believe he was at fault and this trial has now vindicated him.


You are entitled to your opinion and the jury - who we can only assume heard the facts of the case throughout the trial - are entitled to theirs.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2009)

nick h. said:


> The CPS must have thought there was intent to go for the murder charge. I wonder why? Perhaps they thought the driver could see her and lost his temper?  I don't suppose we'll ever find out. This will all go into the Brixton rumour and conspiracy mill.



Maybe as has been stated earlier in the thread and elsewhere the driver went 'no comment' so the CPS threw the highest charge at him and waited to see if anything stuck?


----------



## GarveyLives (May 24, 2015)

*Naomi Benjamin
Rest in Peace*​


----------

