You’re right. That’s why it looks to me that either,
1: she was involved with spying against the UK. So the US extracted her without regard to British opinion.
2: she was involved with spying with the UK but in a way that the British government doesn’t want to acknowledge. So the UK government requested the US extract her and accept any negative publicity as a favor or distraction.
I would not discount (among other unstated possibilities):
3: She was doing rather mundane administrative work for an agency that does do some intelligence gathering somewhere, but on general principle the US federal government does not want to disclose that she only does mundane/administrative work because if the US makes a habit of happily disclosing information without resistance when it’s mundane, and fighting tooth and nail only when it’s not mundane, then when the US does fight tooth and nail for something, finally, it is essentially providing evidence that the information is not mundane.
Kind of like if every ship/submarine with nuclear weapons on board said “I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel…” while every ship without nuclear weapons on board said, when asked, “Nope, we don’t have nuclear weapons on board, have no fear.” Very soon, “I can neither confirm nor deny…” becomes a de facto confirmation.
Hardly. Even the UK government has said she had Diplomatic immunity, as a spouse of a intelligence worker (which she was) . The fact that she is also a intelligence worker is besides the point.
Update:
Apparently Sacoolas has agreed to pay damages rather than face giving evidence in court.
That seems to show that she’s not entirely blameless. She obviously didn’t think that the court would decide in her favour.
Also:
The Dunn family’s lawyers said Sacoolas may have been distracted by her mobile phone in the moments leading up to the collision
Under U.S. law (where it was adjudicated), it was frankly never in doubt that she was “not entirely blameless”, she was driving a car on the wrong side of the road, struck and killed another motorist. There was no real chance any U.S. court wouldn’t have found her negligent and award her damages. A factor like being distracted by the cell phone would likely lead to a larger punitive judgement, but just the basic facts of the accident would make you liable for damages in pretty much any American court.
Her main effort in the Virginia court was to get the court to rule that Harry’s parents couldn’t bring suit there since the accident occurred in England, but once the court ruled against her the result basically became a guarantee. It was always going to be a question of: let it go to jury and potential be hit with a massive judgement, or settle for a known amount (the settlement probably based in part on how much insurance Sacoolas has to cover it.)
And a bump (sorry: that’s not in the best taste, especially in the UK).
Yup. And I didn’t think anyone ever claimed she was blameless. I had claimed that it was a tragic “brain fart”, and not evidence of her having no regard for human life, or some of the stronger claims that were made. But of course she was liable for having killed a kid while driving on the wrong side of the road.
I realise we many never know for sure, but any ideas how much damages would be in similar cases?
I posted this earlier in the thread. $87.50 per person.
And once more: just seen this on BBC TV News.
BBC News - Harry Dunn crash: Anne Sacoolas to face Westminster magistrates
Well yes, since the media and even the British government has decided she is guilty. She can’t get a fair trial. However, even if she wasn’t in any way shape or form criminally liable, she did seem to be civilly liable, so a settlement is reasonable.
Right. Even if “just an accident” you can often still be civilly liable.
Nice, but that wasn’t in court, so they didn’t have to back that claim up with evidence or under penalty of perjury, the claim is meaningless.
If the reports of her using a mobile phone while driving (on the wrong side of the road) prove true, then she most certainly is criminally liable. In English law, causing death whilst driving and using a mobile phone can mean up to 14 years in prison, as it falls into ‘dangerous’ or ‘careless’ driving categories.
She’d be criminally liable in many US states, too. But I’m suspicious of a claim that emerges so long after the event, especially one so weak. Not, “we have a witness who says she was holding a cell phone”, just “she might have been…” She might have been drunk and naked and playing a handheld video game. But she probably wasn’t.
It looks more like a press release designed to rile up the public than actual new information.
For the umpteenth time, the prosecution’s case has NOT been made public, probably to avoid prejudicing the case.
We do not know the facts, and will not know them until they are provided in court. The prosecution is avoiding a trial by media as far as possible.
Yes, in the British process, inherited by many Commonwealth countries, the police and the Crown prosecutors do not reveal their case in advance of the trial. It’s disclosed to the accused, in advance if trial, and then publicly introduced at trial.
All the more reason to question these reports of unknown provenance.
It was all over the news. Honestly, if that’s a real claim, and not something recently invented to stir up public interest, it’s shocking that it’s only hitting the news now.
Since there is no such evidence, then this is just speculation.
They are just posting crap to make her look bad. She wasn’t drunk or driving blindfolded either.
Exactly.
This is so opposite the what is actually happening, it is hard to believe. High ranking UK government officials have gone on record to the media saying she is guilty The family hired a lawyer who hired a PR person. This has been tried by the media since Day One.
And none of this has ever happened in cases in the USA?