Hit-n-Run - You'll want to punch the screen

Strider590

^^ She was infected with higher level of importance syndrome, undoubtedly bought on by the car she was driving.
Just like the typical ar5ehole manager at work who thinks he's a god just because someone gave him a cap.
Some people just let it go to their heads.......

JQ.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Any chance of a link JQ?

It starts unravelling on page 29. She is not being named on Pistonheads as they got the info from a Times journalist and they are giving them the opportunity to update the story on their website first. By all accounts the reporter got the info direct from The Met.

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1026427&mid=165355&i=560&nmt=Hit+%26+Run+Caught+on+Camera%2E%2E%2E%2E+Unbelievable+&mid=165355

Wig

There would be good reason for the uploader not to identify the woman and the court date etc. Because by doing so he would be identifying himself, to anyone who might go snooping to the courthouse.

I know I wouldn't want that if it were me.

He appears to be a security guard on the video, that'll be why the car has a dashcam.

pitkin2020

Wig wrote: »

There would be good reason for the uploader not to identify the woman and the court date etc. Because by doing so he would be identifying himself, to anyone who might go snooping to the courthouse.

I know I wouldn't want that if it were me.

He appears to be a security guard on the video, that'll be why the car has a dashcam.

I agree with the first part. The video was filmed in January and has obviously been used as evidence and wasn't allowed to be released until after the hearing, which they may have also stated the owner of the fottage couldn't release any identifiable information.

How did you come to the conclusion he was a security guard though??

JQ.

Wig wrote: »

There would be good reason for the uploader not to identify the woman and the court date etc. Because by doing so he would be identifying himself, to anyone who might go snooping to the courthouse.

I know I wouldn't want that if it were me.

He appears to be a security guard on the video, that'll be why the car has a dashcam.

The Uploader was one of the people in the car and is also the owner of Profusion Customs - the name plastered all over the youtube video, and a manufacturer of car custom exhausts. I don't think they were worried about identifying themselves.

She was prosecuted on 24th June, the video was uploaded after that date, so no issues with identifying her either.

It would appear the video was uploaded to market their company, seems to have been very successful to me. And fair enough, what they did was excellent and I hope if someone did that to a member of my family there would be people prepared to do the same.

scheming_gypsy

JQ. wrote: »

It starts unravelling on page 29. She is not being named on Pistonheads as they got the info from a Times journalist and they are giving them the opportunity to update the story on their website first. By all accounts the reporter got the info direct from The Met.

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1026427&mid=165355&i=560&nmt=Hit+%26+Run+Caught+on+Camera%2E%2E%2E%2E+Unbelievable+&mid=165355

but wouldn't it have made the local papers / anything else and not just the Times? it doesn't even show on the listings for the court

pendulum

I know this is probably wrong, but I hope she gets some proper justice now that 4chan are on the job and her identity has / or is very near to being discovered.

sarahg1969

This is the list for 24/06/2011 in Isleworth Crown Court:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-court-lists-results.php

scheming_gypsy

pendulum wrote: »

I know this is probably wrong, but I hope she gets some proper justice now that 4chan are on the job and her identity has / or is very near to being discovered.

it shouldn't need anybody on the job, a simple google would give the answer for every other case. Journalists and pretty much anybody can sit in on (most?) trials so how come this one has evaded the local paper, the news, the national papers etc.

antrobus

antrobus wrote: »

I have a question.

Just after witnessing the 'accident', the passenger gets out of the car (to attend to the wounded presumably) whilst the driver 'follows the !!!!!' to get her registration number? Why? He's already got a record of the number plate on the dash cam.

worried_jim wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't have confidence in the police turning up and catching her.

MackemPunk wrote: »

She could report the car stolen when she gets home.

etc

All good answers to the question of why the driver followed the so called 'b1tch'. However my question was why he followed her in order to get her registration number when he was already in possession of said info. It was a rhetorical question, as it happens. I only mentioned it because it struck rather a false note with me, and rather made me suspect that the incident may well have been staged.