Listen to the tape of the phone call between him and the emergency services operator, he is calm and not the least bit fazed by what has happened, in the event of an accident most people would be all over the place.
Whilst this is a very sad case , the victim is partly an architect of these disastrous chain of events ? . Anyone with common sense would not get out of their vehicle and become involved in an argument such as this . It is difficult to see how a murder charge can be justified . Goes to show how easy it is to obtain a conviction in certain circumstances ( whether right or wrong . )
N.I Express:
Whilst this is a very sad case , the victim is partly an architect of these disastrous chain of events ? . Anyone with common sense would not get out of their vehicle and become involved in an argument such as this . It is difficult to see how a murder charge can be justified . Goes to show how easy it is to obtain a conviction in certain circumstances ( whether right or wrong . )
More nonsense. Its like people who complain that women who are provocatively dressed contribute to them being raped. A jury sat through a long case, and no matter what the provocation if he drove over him on purpose as the jury decided he did then he is guilty of murder. As for easy to obtain a conviction…have you any idea how much work will have been put into a case like this? Not to mention the skill involved in convincing twelve individuals of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that is if the jury had any doubts at all they would not have found him guilty of murder. Easy you say?
N.I Express:
Whilst this is a very sad case , the victim is partly an architect of these disastrous chain of events ? )
Nah !! The lorry driver looks a bit mad, he’s got them boggling eyes. And, when the mood suits him he’s apt to get out the cab and dish it out, he never wanted to this time though. Thats the stamp of the man.
Normal people don’t act like that even when they’re angry, he should be sent to Broadmoor, until his eyes look normal.
del trotter:
Listen to the tape of the phone call between him and the emergency services operator, he is calm and not the least bit fazed by what has happened, in the event of an accident most people would be all over the place.
This seems a popular modern thing the idea that people should behave in a certain emotional or grief stricken manner. I cannot see how this is a legitimate way in which to determine guilt or innocence.
Edit: Oh and what his eyes look like, apparently. 
Own Account Driver:
This seems a popular modern thing the idea that people should behave in a certain emotional or grief stricken manner.
There is nothing new or modern about the concept of “remorse”
Own Account Driver:
I cannot see how this is a legitimate way in which to determine guilt or innocence.
You’re correct, its not. But it is a mitigating factor when considering (as in this case) if you just ran someone over would or should you sound emotional. Just mitigating mind…
Own Account Driver:
Edit: Oh and what his eyes look like, apparently.
Never lose sight (pardon the pun) of your instincts, they can often serve you better than finding out facts. If it looks like a nutter, it generally is.
Own Account Driver:
This seems a popular modern thing the idea that people should behave in a certain emotional or grief stricken manner. I cannot see how this is a legitimate way in which to determine guilt or innocence.
Care to point out where I said it determined guilt or innocence?
You are telling me that if knocked somebody over in your truck by accident and could see they were seriously injured you would react in a calm and detached manner, really? No indicator of anything, just most people react with panic in life threatening situations, whether it be thinking of the guy on the floor or the consequences for yourself, the witness had more emotion in his voice than the driver.
All this that the jury found him guilty so he must be guilty is nonsense,how many people have been found guilty in court ,sentence too life in prison,then years later evidence comes too light that proves they were innocent of the crime the jury found them guilty of
Moodybum:
ajt:
Moodybum:
m1cks:
ajt:
Moodybum:
ajt:
^^^^Where did it say Slater left his cab ?He admitted this in court!
Were you in court ?
No, I bet he wasn’t but I imagine one of the journalists that reported on the case and wrote it in the newspaper article were.
M1cks, thanks for the assumption, NO I AM NOT A JOURNALIST but unfortunately i was at the trial, from Monday 21st July right through to sentencing on wed 30th July! Slater admitted in court that he stepped out of his truck!
You know what this forum is absolutely absurd, your defending a fellow truck driver, who murdered an innocent man, just because he is a driver, it’s insane. How about you reflect on this for a minute and think how you would be feeling right now if your father, brother, uncle or grandfather would have been ran over by a 17 tonne truck, all of their insides emptying out of their body, bones crushing, head exploding and them not being identifiable, so much so that they had to be identified by their tooth brush? Slater was cool as a cucumber when the incident happened, his ecg was “normal” the jury listened to the facts of the case and they found him unanimously guilty, if you would have sat and listened to the facts of the case, maybe you wouldn’t all be so quick to defend!
Lets get one thing straight, i’m not defending Slater but because the victim was clearly involving himself in the altercation and was standing in front of the truck after Slater had got back in he also had a part to play in the outcome hence imo why manslaughter would have been more appropriate.
If two blokes decide to fight down the pub and one gets hurt you can hardly call the injured man a victim.
Firstly, it’s not really comparable to a pub brawl is it? two men fighting with their fists?
The jury, after over a week of grueling facts/information were asked, after hearing the judge sum up the facts of the case, whether they found the defendant guilty of Murder, Manslaughter, or if it was an accident and they (quiet rightly imo) found him guilty of murder. Had you have been sat in court listening to both the defense and prosecution argue the facts then i think you would have a different opinion. It’s not a simple case of Trevor was out of his car so he was “involving himself in the altercation and was standing in front of the truck after Slater got back in” which in turn allows Slater to crush him under his 17 tonne truck, as a consequence he should be found guilty of manslaughter! Several photographs were taken and shown that in every possible angle Slater could see Trevor and therefore it was very unlikely that you could say it was manslaughter, furthermore, surely any normal person would sit in their cab and wait until they could categorically confirm that the person was back in their car, if the person wouldn’t leave then the police should be called. Slater quiet clearly wanted to hurt Trevor with his truck and unfortunately for both parties he killed him.
See this is what worries me,surely you should be imparcial in you views,but you use the words TREVOR and SLATER ,why not use both there first names,surnames,but by using the victims first name and then the lorry drivers surname comes over too me as if you had your mind made up well before the court case .
How were Trevor and slater referred too in court 
,
dozy:
All this that the jury found him guilty so he must be guilty is nonsense,how many people have been found guilty in court ,sentence too life in prison,then years later evidence comes too light that proves they were innocent of the crime the jury found them guilty of
A tiny percentage. But you hear about them because they are big news. Also jury trials are a tiny part of our justice system.
switchlogic:
dozy:
All this that the jury found him guilty so he must be guilty is nonsense,how many people have been found guilty in court ,sentence too life in prison,then years later evidence comes too light that proves they were innocent of the crime the jury found them guilty ofA tiny percentage. But you hear about them because they are big news. Also jury trials are a tiny part of our justice system.
Exactly, tends to be in cases where the evidence was mostly circumstantial, not the case here, unless Dozy, you want to claim it was all a fit up and the guy threw himself under the lorry.