Victoria Hamer’s statement synopsis

Ms Hamer did not give her “No Comment” interview until the 18th of October 2020 because the police were told she was not in a fit state to be interviewed even though she returned to work on the 12th of October 2020.

I was, at the time, and still am grateful to the police for providing us with a synopsis of the interview. This is what we were provided with.

‘She has confirmed that she was driving home from work at Axe Valley Vets in Blackford. She advised that she was not in a hurry, and that she had taken her usual route along the B3139. She confirmed that the sun was low in the sky. She has stated that she did not see Lorraine/mum until she was very close to her, stating that as soon as she saw her she had made attempts to steer away but was unable to avoid colliding with her. She has no recollection of her speed at the point of impact. Although states would not consciously drive at a speed she thought was not appropriate to the conditions. She also states that she was not using her mobile phone for any purpose at the time. She recalls the setting sun had affected her view of the road ahead, and that having seen a photograph of her car with the drivers sun visor pulled down. She states it would only have been pulled down to shield her eyes from the sun.’

I make the following observations

1)     taken her usual route along the B3139 – In fact, we understand that Ms Hamer travelled this route for some two and a half years and therefore must have known it was a 30mph limit. I would add that she must have passed Lorraine on many occasions.

2)     she did not see Lorraine/mum until she was very close to her, stating that as soon as she saw her she had made attempts to steer away but was unable to avoid colliding with her. – attempts in the plural? In fact this is not the case. The traffic investigator report states that Ms Hamer did not make an evasive manoeuvre until at the point of impact or after. He goes on to state that Ms Hamer did not brake until after the point of impact. Click here to view a clip taken from the CCTV footage and you judge whether or not you think Ms Hamer made attempts to avoid Lorraine.

3)     Although states would not consciously drive at a speed she thought was not appropriate to the conditions. – I don’t wish to be rude but this is laughable. You claim you cannot see yet you believe travelling at a minimum speed of 44mph (46.66% over the known speed limit) blind is driving to the road conditions.

4)     and that having seen a photograph of her car with the drivers sun visor pulled down. She states it would only have been pulled down to shield her eyes from the sun. – there is no relevance to this statement unless you can prove that no one touched the sun visor, who took the photograph, did anyone have access to the car and we know that Ms Hamer returned to her car 7 minutes after killing Lorraine. She says it was to phone the Vet but this in dispute as a witness states “She (Ms Hamer) gave me the telephone number and I phoned them on my mobile“. The police confirm this and also confirtm that no call to the Vet was made on Ms Hamer phone. In any case sun visors are designed to help you see and Ms Hamer claims she was still unable to see Lorraine for over 150.1 metres. Are there other reasons for pulling your sun visor down?

Remember there was no point in the police attempting to elaborate, confirm or obtain more details as Ms Hamer would have, or did, answer “No Comment”