[Closed] hmmm, smells like BS to me. Dodgy justice content

[i]The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected. [/i]

That's the only thing I can see.

nick, IIRC correctly he was jailed for the sending of texts while doing 80 odd down the motorway, not for the crash.

Much as I would love to take the opportunity to have a pop at a Labour peer, it seemed to me that the sentence was harsh given that the texting was finished a few minutes before the accident, and it wasn't clear exactly how or why the poor guy that was killed was still in the road when he was hit after the earlier crash - granted I didn't read the whole facts

I understand that they could detect that his last txt was sent 2 minutes before the crash, but how do they know that he wasn't writing another txt at the time of the crash?. Does the phone keep track of keypresses?

Every text/call has a time associated with it. Just look at the message details next time you get a text (not the time recieved by the details where there is time sent detail)..

Simples

Yep I realise that every txt has a time associated with it. But let's supposed you've sent a txt 2 minutes ago, and are in the middle of writing the next one when you plough into a car. The log will just show a txt sent 2 minutes earlier rather than the one that you are currently halfway through writing.

surely nobody is actually surprised.

'cept mr gombar.

"but how do they know that he wasn't writing another txt at the time of the crash?."

Bit of a dated concept, and sadly erroded I know, but in most cases there is still a presumption of innocence so it would be for the prosecution to prove that he was writing a txt.

my BS'ometer twitched because the appeal court think there's some reason his sentence should changed. Usually they dont interfere unless the theres a serious miscarriage. The fact that he was imprisoned for the texting not the crash has not passed me by. Im just wondering why the appeal court got involved in such a "trivial" case...

and are in the middle of writing the next one when you plough into a car.

Presumably because justice in this country is based on a principle of guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I imagine it is/was judged beyond reasonable doubt in this case that he had used his phone whilst driving, and hence committed an offence.

Whilst it is possible that he (or anyone else in similar circumstances) was doing something else at the time of the accident - writing a text message, twiddling with the radio, scratching his nuts etc. - if there isn't / wasn't any evidence of this then it isn't going to be possible to prosecute on the basis of what someone might have been doing...

I believe that the Police will seize mobile phones etc from cars at the scene of accidents and inspect them to determine if they were actually being used at the time, but this can normally only be based on what it is visible on the screen.

Well I never knew that people could be made life peers when they had no legitimate baronesy (probably not a real word). Fancy that.

samuri - it's one of the improvements brought in for replacing teh hereditary peers.

tbf, his solicitor was shouting the odds over the sentence from the minute he came out of court - could presumably smell the additional fees for an appeal

CFH, sorry, you're right, even says so on that report on the Beeb. Dunno then.

[i]Presumably because justice in this country is based on a principle of guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I imagine it is/was judged beyond reasonable doubt in this case that he had used his phone whilst driving, and hence committed an offence.[/i]

Sorry, my query isn't about whether justice has been served, but whether phones actually keep a keypress log in them?
At the moment it's not clear whether he wasn't txting, or there was no evidence of him txting. I've got no issues with our justice system being based on 'beyond reasonable doubt', i'm just wondering whether it was known that he (or any person in a similar situation) wasn't txting, or that there is reasonble doubt that they're not txting.

i'm just wondering whether it was known that he (or any person in a similar situation) wasn't txting, or that there is reasonble doubt that they're not txting.

As per the last part of my message, no it's not a normal function. Although you can get a forensic examination done of a mobile phone there's little information available in the event of logging except for call events, SMS etc. Hence the examination of the phone at the scene of the accident, to try and establish if it was 'in use' - typically looking for things like a half-finished text message on the screen.

At the moment it's not clear whether he wasn't txting, or there was no evidence of him txting. I've got no issues with our justice system being based on 'beyond reasonable doubt', i'm just wondering whether it was known that he (or any person in a similar situation) wasn't txting, or that there is reasonble doubt that they're not txting.

But I don't think you can be lead by the fact that he was texting earlier. For any given road accident the driver [i]could[/i] have been composing a text, regardless of whether they'd sent any minutes before, but you'd have to assume they weren't (assuming no evidence of course), 'cos otherwise wouldn't you have to consider the huge range of other things they could have been doing?

EDIT: What I mean is that the reasonable doubt is probably the same for this case as it would be for any other (or at least you could strongly argue that it is).

how does anyone know the exact time he hit the car/bloke ?
and who knows what time his 'phone thought it was when that happened ?
i.e. who's to say he didn't send the text 5 seconds before impact ?

... and I thought he was originally imprisoned for being a c***, no ?

A text is time stamped at the server not the phone

3 mins elapsed between his last text & a 999 call reporting his crash

A text is time stamped at the server not the phone

3 mins elapsed between his last text & a 999 call reporting his crash

*saves me having to read anything for myself

[i]But I don't think you can be lead by the fact that he was texting earlier.[/i]

I'm definitely having problems explaining what i mean 🙂
I'm not trying to infer that he was txting, what i'm querying is whether their exists an actual technological method for determining if someone is writing (not sending) a txt at a given point in time.

I'd always venture into the fast lane of a motorway to retieve my mobile phone after crashing my car into the central reservation. Especially after a few drinks at Christmas. If I was struck and killed by a car travelling along on the motorway, would you think I was blameless?

Many years ago my Police trained driving instructor said that most accidents occur when two idiot drivers meet up with one another. Whilst I don't believe this is fair, in the case of this accident, he would seem to have been right. The driver was not paying attention. Undue care and attention.

What I don't understand is why the media keep banging on about texting whilst driving. A separate issue from the death of this man, but a [u]very [/u][u]very[/u] serious matter that should carry stiff penalies. The reports I read stated that the last text sent was over 2.5 minutes before the collision. At 60 mph that would have been 2.5 miles away from the accident!

We endure so much bullshit these days! If only we could have the true facts without the froth and fashionable opinion. Journalists should be regulated for twisting things to suit the agenda of their paymasters!

I just had an idea for the mobile operators. It is possible to detect when a Mobile phone is on the move by the transfer of connectitvity between cells. Handsets can be triangulated to within a cell for example. So why can't they deploy a system to disable delivery and sending of SMS and MMS when a unit is travelling beyond a certain speed? A-GPS units have their own built in positioning capability.

That would kill this danger stone dead.

I'm with you on that one SB

It would have the benefit of stopping others riding in my car rabbiting on to their mates & all the tossers on the train pretending to be big & important

😉

Sponge - So nobody travelling over say 20mph is allowed to use a mobile phone? not even passengers in cars, buses or coachs?

At least that would stop people using mobile phones on trains!

why don't they make it illegal to use phones in the car at all?

There's research to show that hands-free's also dangerous isn't there, and "we can't enforce it" is a cop-out