To actually feel sorry for the woman driving the car in the Wimbledon car accident

@OneTC imagine they share the name of the doctor and even with this small piece of information people can start digging. Maybe he took part in other similar cases or regularly works with their solicitor etc.
I don't think anyone shares even less sensitive information unless they are made to because it can provoke even more speculations.

The information is medically confidential yes but they've already made public what the confidential medical information says.

So unless it's going to paint a less definitive picture I don't see what the motive in withholding it from the parents is.

I can understand why some might find that odd.

This isn’t going to a criminal court though? The Coroner will have powers to summon witnesses and the families can have a barrister so I suppose there’s the possibility of the driver sharing the information. However inquests are held in the public interest so the emphasis is on lessons learned rather than restorative justice.

The Review isn’t a statutory process so it can be what the Police make it I suppose. It does sound as if they should involve the family.

It goes both ways. I’ve seen lack of empathy towards parents and witnesses as well. Posts that basically said that they need to quote “butt off” and accept what they’ve been told. That it’s not their business to see the neurological report (even though the driver will have to share the health information with different insurances at some point. But it’s ok to share it with insurances but definitely not with the families based on their logic).

No one should be driving a massive great big tank around the streets of London. It's ridiculous

I will state I was deleted because I questioned the motives of some posters, not because I was offensive or name called, unlike a few posters . Clearly someone has been using the report function, and it wasn’t me…

The driver absolutely needs to be investigated.

Elephant in the room: Would people be so happy to take the driver at her word and let her go free if she wasn’t a white, wealthy privileged mother, and the victims weren’t non-white children???

@Emilyontmoor maybe it's just because of watching too many US soap operas as a teen, but I was under an impression that all sorts of information is shared if the case goes to court. Is it the same in the UK? There was so much information about Constance Marten and her baby published.

I can’t imagine so as it is medically confidential.

I didn’t get the impression the Family and teachers were actually challenging the fact that there was to be no prosecution so much as the time the investigation had taken, that they felt they had been kept in the dark and that the teachers felt they should have been interviewed as witnesses. All perfectly understandable when you are needing closure after such horrendous trauma.

I don’t see the point of speculating what the statement of someone turning up after the event may or may not add.

I am just stating a fact that they are called eye witnesses that have seen the state of car, driver and children. Again, based on the article they expressed their concerns about some parts of the investigation.

Unless you want to go down the conspiracy theory route to suggest that what’s written in the article is a lie.

@Emilyontmoor
The defence however just has to prove the probability of unconsciousness.

That's right and that's why the parents might never be satisfied. I'd feel the same way and don't get why so many posters here try to downplay it.

Because the driver doesn't have to prove a seizure with a blood test or MRI/EEG, it can just be recorded from their own words and even if the confirming test results exist the parents have no right to see them to realize the person is not faking it.

Can this data be made available to the parents or their solicitors during the review or some other way?

I only threw those words around in response to the people who were saying that anyone who didn’t support the parents to the exclusion of the driver was “cruel”. I was just dragging the Overton window back a bit, not least because some very vindictive and ignorant things have been said on here.

As I have pointed out in relation to the case I was involved with if you wanted to prosecute the driver you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they faked their condition / that some other explanation exists for the passage of the car. The defence however just has to prove the probability of unconsciousness.

I am quite sure given the high profile of the case that the Police have done all they can to establish if there is any evidence to justify a prosecution. Unlike the case I was involved with there were forensic teams at the site and a team of detectives, rather than one green uniform man. It seems close to impossible with the Mail on their backs that they decided not to prosecute without making sure they didn’t have the evidence to do so.

@Emilyontmoor why throw around such words as "conspiracy", "vindictiveness" and "lynch mob"? I'll just keep repeating my question then.

We live in the real world and people can fake different kind of things. You can't fake epilepsy but you can make up a past seizure because doctors can't rule out a past seizure with instrumental methods.
No one is saying that's what happened but I think you'll agree that it's always one of the options?

The Police have said they are not prosecuting the driver. If the driver was in fact conscious when the car set on its path then it would be at least dangerous driving, possibly murder / manslaughter. If it was a problem with the car it would also be an offence. The Police did prosecute the case I was involved with so if there were even the slightest doubt about it being automatism they would let a jury decide. In that case it was a more obscure medical context than epilepsy.

However I see the conspiracy tendency now even extends to people daring to post anything other than conspiracies! I have been on Mumsnet for over 10 years, started out campaigning on inclusive schools no less, spent a lot of time on Brexit, Education and the Tamoxigang (So lots of experience of shit happening) threads. And all to defend some Wimbledon SUV driver, think not!!

@Emilyontmoor why call people just asking unconvenient questions "vindictive"?
No one wants a person with a real medical condition to be found guilty.

But we live in the real world and people can fake different kind of things. You can't fake epilepsy but you can make up a past seizure because doctors can't rule out a past seizure with instrumental methods.
No one is saying that's what happened but I think you'll agree that it's alway one of the options.
And I'm wondering why this particular thread attracts so many accounts actively trying to shut up alternative versions while on another thread around 60% of people believe that people can fake medical conditions for their merit.

Because I pointed out you couldn’t actually do anything if this woman was driving legally?

Or pointing out that if you really believed loads of people joined MN in case a thread like this came up, you could actually do something and report us?

By the way the parents are most definitely people like me. My children went to nearby Prep Schools and have friends who went to the Study. I live by a school and am no fans of parents and others throwing their SUVs around like dodgem cars.

However having been involved in a case where autoism was the defence in less clear cut circumstances and where the victims were not people like us, I do have a perspective on this case that can see it as a tragic accident which has attracted an unnecessary amount of emotion and vindictiveness towards the driver.

@ShouldhavebeencalledAppollo - you sound so nice.

Like I said. Feel free to report us. Go ahead and do it.

or is it another one of those things that you feel superior saying but wouldn’t actually do anything about.

You forgot to mention evidences and lynch mob.

Ok report us to MNHQ. I am sure they can advise you wether we are new posters or not.

I changed my name several weeks ago. Didn’t think to run it by you? Are you suggesting I joined weeks ago, in anticipation of this coming up? Really?

You posting history is sketchy itself, if you wanted it to look that way, a few old posts then massive gaps then again recently the vast majority on this thread. Who are you doing PR for? Did you come back a few weeks ago since you knew this thread would come up?

There's been no evidences released by the police, there was a "source" planting some information favouring a certain version in The Sun a year ago and other tabloids reprinting it.
Or please share the link to "the evidence".

It isn’t a matter of defending the driver. They are pointing out that if, she was unconscious, she is not legally culpable. All the evidence so far released by the Police points to them thinking it was a case of “autoism”

You can have the utmost empathy with the parents, it was a tragic accident, and given they have been kept waiting so long and that not every witness has been interviewed, of course in the circumstances they want answers. However why are some people who clearly do not understand either the medical or legal context twisting themselves up in knots to think of some other explanation? As I say a virtual lunch mob.