THE driver who says he was unconscious when his car hit two pensioners, killing one, was not "slumped" over the wheel like the Glasgow bin lorry crash driver, a court was told.
Cardiologist Andrew Flapan told the jury that he thinks it is "extremely unlikely" that Vincent Friel suffered a vasovagal attack, or faint, at the wheel of his Range Rover.
Friel, 44, has denied causing the death of 68-year-old Charlotte Collins, known as Carol, and seriously injuring her cousin Margaret Haldane, 69, by driving dangerously through a red light onto a pedestrian crossing on Barrhead Road, in Pollok in January 2014.
He has lodged a special defence of automatism which says that his blood pressure dropped and he fainted behind the wheel losing control of his actions.
On the fourth day of evidence, at the High Court in Edinburgh, cardiologist Dr Flapan, 58, again stated that again that he thought it was "extremely unlikely" that Friel had suffered a vasovagal syncope.
Ian Duguid QC, acting for Friel, suggested to the witness that he had "come to that conclusion on one piece of information" namely the CCTV footage of the moments after the crash which show the driver leaving his car within seconds.
Dr Flapan said that the footage was an "important piece of evidence" but said it was also considered alongside witness statements which described the drivers eyes as open and that he "did not appear to be slumped over" as had been the description in "other recent road traffic accidents".
Mr Duguid said that it couldn't be said for certain he wasn't slumped over the wheel but there were no witness statements saying this.
He later added: "If we are talking about the bin lorry crash in Glasgow as the other Scottish case, that bin lorry was involved in an accident in December 2014 - 11 months before this.
"The driver was seen slumped to the side and being supported by his seatbelt."
Dr Flapan said: "That is the case, yes."
Mr Duguid asked him: "If there is no medical explanation is it just a big lie?"
Dr Flapan said again that he did not think there was enough evidence to support vasovagal syncope.
He suggested Friel's confusion in the moments after the crash could have been an "natural reaction" to a stressful situation.
But a second cardiologist Dr Adrian Brady, described as a "global leader in hypertension", disagreed with Dr Flapan's conclusions.
The first witness for the prosecution is an associate professor of Glasgow University and has 20 years experience in his profession having lectured on all continents of the world, the court was told.
He has treated Friel, of Rutherglen, for high blood pressure or hypertension since 2004, he said.
Dr Brady said that people with this condition who have small drop in blood pressure are more likely to "black out".
Friel had been taking one form of medication to lower his blood pressure for years but in the months before the crash he was prescribed a second medication by another doctor.
Dr Brady said he would not have prescribed the additional medication as it would caused Friel's blood pressure to drop too much.
Dr Brady calculated what Friel's blood pressure is likely to have been at the time of the crash - also taking into account information from Friel that he had lost up to 10kg in weight in the weeks before.
He said this would leave been around 90/60 - a normal reading is around 120/80.
In a report he said: "This is much too low, although a young man would tolerate this reasonably well for a while.
"However, the individual would be prone to sudden vasovagal attacks from any event which caused a further drop in blood pressure."
He later added that a blood pressure reading taken from Friel after the crash was "unusually low" at 148/80.
He said he would expect to see a much higher reading in somebody with hypertension who had been involved in a stressful event.
Cross examining, Advocate depute Iain McSporran asked Dr Brady: "Did you make a diagnosis that Vincent Friel suffered a vasovagal?"
He replied: "I said it was a likely or possible event."
The trial, before judge Morris continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article