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

Its a tragic story for the parents. I really want to sympathise with the driver but how did she manage to remain anonymous for such a long time. How did the tabloids not even get a hint of who the driver was. That can only happen if you have a lot of money to shut everyone up. I doubt very much the outcome would have been the same for someone from a low income background. One more thing doesn't that car have an anti collision system that would have stopped it when it first hit the fence? Something doesn't add up.

It’s very unlikely that the head wasn’t spoken to at all. Especially since the scene was on school land. The head said ‘I wasn’t interviewed as a witness’. That could mean anything.

Maybe the head expected a more formal statement and was just asked questions. Or to provide a written statements. It doesn’t mean they were spoken to at all.

The woman leaving the vehicle means nothing. That doesn’t impact whether it was a seizure or not. So why is the head including that in their interviews. Because they don’t understand seizures. They think it’s relevant. It’s not. The head teacher thinking it’s relevant doesn’t mean the CPS agrees

In all likelihood the police spoke to several witnesses. Witnesses are notoriously bad evidence. Which is why there are teams to investigate crash sites. Because that evidence is more reliable. As is medical evidence.

But we will know more once the inquest is done.

There was a suggestion upthread somewhere that police should have contacted eyewitnesses for evidence of the driver suffering confusion as an after effect of a seizure. If they haven’t then, as you say, they may have medical reports which supports seizure as the cause.

@lbwagain but where the incident is caused by a medical condition or incident of a third party really what level of external investigation ie with other parties is necessary? Also what level of update would they be satisfied with? As headteachers they should know better than most what data protection means you can and can't say

Of course not saying it would have made a difference but it would make sense, wouldn't it, in a community such as a school - where parents are bound to be upset where there is a duty of care to keep the poor students and other parents informed - to keep them informed and why wouldn't you ask witnesses on the scene what happened?

It probably would have stopped all the speculation and was short sighted of the police in my view.

@lbwagain the point that I'm making is I think the headteachers are very much mistaken if they think their evidence would have changed the course of the investigation if it was proven medically that she was unconscious/unable medically to control her body or the car

How do you have access to this info?

Usually eye witness statements would be sought.

I don't doubt it was a fit necessarily but I don't think they did the test for seizure (which I believe can be done if within 48 hours) as that was something that was suggested later, not immediately.

The coroner’s court is a publicly open court. Why? Are you thinking of going?

To be fair most people don't drive because they 'need' to.

@lbwagain no i don't because I don't understand what you think it would achieve? Especially as they've all talked among themselves and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable

I think it would be very unusual not to contact eye witnesses who were there at the scene, don't you?

@lbwagain why would the police necessarily need to contact eye witnesses? It's not going to supersede medical reports saying she was ill at the time of the incident and therefore did not have the intention to cause the incident or be reckless in doing so.

Agree. Actually what l find unbelievable is the number of posters hijacking a tragedy and twisting it to suit their own agenda. If this woman genuinely had a seizure and her foot was flat to the accelerator as a result, it wouldn’t have mattered what she was driving - the outcome would have been the same. The investigation concluded there was no evidence of braking.

It actually makes me think that some of the comments on here are from a PR person hired by the wealthy driver or pro SUV lobby.

As has been mentioned many times, sadly it's unlikely the make of car would have made any difference. A smaller car would have done the same damage in such a situation. This has been shown in similar incidents where even smaller vehicles have destroyed the sides of houses, etc,

And everyone involved here is likely to be wealthy - parents and drivers.

There is no evidence that the driver hired a PR firm.

All parties would have engaged good lawyers to act in their behalf. Wouldn't you?

Some posters are make absolutely ridiculous points - just because people are setting out that the society we live in thankfully states that people in the driver's circumstances do have rights under the law and should have rights, and the CPS says no crime has been committed, it does not mean anyone is underplaying the horrific nature of what happened and the tragedy that is the death of the two children. It's more than possible to separate the two.

This is why it's good we have a criminal justice system not based on retribution, and that we have a system that actually wants to look at the facts and not attribute a criminal act to someone who had no ability to control their body at the time the incident happened.

Also people seem to be forgetting this was a private school, so the parents of the children who sadly passed away will be in the same financial bracket as the woman who unfortunately caused the incident.

I feel dreadfully sorry for all involved (and I do have a friend who had her first seizure, out of the blue, aged 50 and then several after that).

However, I think the school (and other parents) and head teachers are somewhat surprised and annoyed that the police did not approach them and others on the scene as witnesses, especially as the outgoing head said, as I think I read in the Sunday Times today, that she saw the woman leave the car afterwards.

It does seem odd that the police have not contacted those, key witnesses at all and certainly very short-sighted not to keep them informed, even if they aren't able to share medical evidence necessarily.

But the type of vehicle is irrelevant in this case. A seizure would probably have resulted in her foot flat to the accelerator, so the outcome would likely have been the same whatever car she was driving - the investigation concluded that there was no evidence of braking.

Oh ffs

no one championing anyone. The wealthy driver? Do you know the parents are also wealthy? Did they hire you? Or maybe fiat hired you to increase punto sales.or maybe the school hired you?

No had suggested the parents are unreasonable for how they feel. But that doesn’t change the facts that are available at the moment.

Theres no legal responsibility on the part of the driver and the driver will be legally allowed to drive if they meet the requirements set out for people with epilepsy.

Under what rules would you be able to stop her driving?

That’s complete nonsense. I haves close friend who had a serious seizure at her desk when she was in her late 40s. She had never had epilepsy or a seizure before. The specialist told her that it’s not uncommon at all.

Good point.

Will the inquest be public?

Same here - I can't believe that on Mumsnet of all places, there is not more outrage regarding the potential of these vehicles to maim and kill children.

It actually makes me think that some of the comments on here are from a PR person hired by the wealthy driver or pro SUV lobby.

Will not be diagnosed with epilepsy doesn't equal to will not get "seizure" in her medical record. It's just epilepsy is more precise and needs eeg evidence of abnormal electric brain activity.

OK then. Whatever you like, but if there was no presumption of guilt why was that poster so opposed to this woman being allowed to drive again, assuming she remained seizure free. If the seizure was genuine she hasn’t done anything wrong has she ?