Father found guilty of killing four of his kids in a car accident

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Bungleau He's already paying a debt to a higher justice... and more punishment here on earth. Jailing him, IMHO from across the pond with little actual knowledge of the case and the law, seems to be... redundant, or superfluous at best.

I think that's the issue here; that he shouldn't be prosecuted, even if he is at fault, since he lost four of his kids in the accident.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Kakero To clarify : This is what I read in yorick's first post This is what I read in yorick's first post link. it's basically the same as the one yorick quoted. So can you can imagine how one will feel puzzled when people tell him to read the friggin thing? And being called a flamebait somemore. shesh!

Bung, he was contesting points found in the first story/link: ie. car mounting riverbank, and the corroded bracket snapping, causing the car to fall into the riverbank.

[Bungleau]

I guess I'm missing the point of the discussion here, then...

Is the issue that the modifications he did on his car turned out to be faulty, which led to the death of his children? Or is the issue that he killed his children?

IOW, is he being tried for being a lousy modder or killing his kids? I'm getting the picture that he's being tried for having killed his kids... and this seems quite a bit different from the usual "tie them up and execute them" type of killing. This appears to be as accidental a death as you could find.... unless he's really being tried for the after effects of being a lousy modder.

I may have to stay out of this if I can't wrap my brain around what's going on here.

*edit* As for the flamebait stuff and differences between articles, I'll stay out of that too. I can add no value there...

[Felix The Assassin]

The court heard that the Land Rover passed an MoT in February last year but a friend had seen Mr Gresham, a mechanic, repeatedly making repairs to a faulty rear axle that had come loose a fortnight before the crash. It was a bracket snapping on this rear axle that caused the car to swerve as it moved on to the grass verge, the court heard. The jury was told that Mr Gresham had been driving at between 50 and 60mph along the narrow stretch of country lane in a “defective vehicle”, which made the accident an “avoidable tragedy”. Mr Gresham denies four counts of causing death by dangerous driving. The trial continues.

I can only assume this is a "manslaughter" or "vehicular manslaughter" case?

If so, then I fully understand he is guilty. But is not my understanding of how the courts there work. Therefore, a court here would find him guilty, and some sort of prison sentence would be forthcoming.

As well, he would be charged with reckless driving as opposed to careless driving due to speed, and roadway size. Clearly speed was the cause of the maneuver, the broken axle link was the cause of ill modification or lack of repair, and we all know the effect of such a terrible water landing.

May he learn a lot from his mistakes, and be lucky he did not kill any others.

[Kakero]

Originally Posted by Yorick Bung, he was contesting points found in the first story/link: ie. car mounting riverbank, and the corroded bracket snapping, causing the car to fall into the riverbank.

My post #18 wasn't aimed at Bung . It was rather an extension of post #16 (if you read the little edit note).

Anyway, it's good to know that the first post #1 was only a partial of the story and people have to click here and there to get the full story. Which was why I was puzzled by some of the replies in the first place.

[Sever]

As i see it, no mention is made of the guy actually being sentenced to prison yet. Just that he has been found guilty (which is an essential part in any vehicle crash case - someone is always guilty, and to prevent future complications, someone needs to be named the guilty party). If British laws work the same as the ones i know, then a mandatory prison sentence may not necessarily be given to him. The judge can waive prison due to the unique circumstances (or for any reason he/she chooses, really). The circumstances in this case being that a prison sentence won't fix anything and will, as Yorick rightly points out, very likely make the whole thing even messier.