Why is the Wimbledon school crash investigation not getting more attention?

[Eesha]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15731159/Eleven-Met-Officers-probed-Wimbledon-crash-killed-schoolgirls.html

Why isnt this bigger news? This school is similar to mine, and it seems like they have great lawyers who got her off.

Omg seriously?! You think they get in a room (how soon after the accident- wouldn’t she have been interviewed as soon as being released from hospital?) and some lawyers say “tell them you had an epileptic fit, that’s difficult to prove”

wtf?!?

Of course, I’m not questioning that at all. I mentioned murder specifically because that is indeed lurid and ridiculous.

Neither have I said the families are lesser victims - what happened is horrific, regardless of whether anyone is at fault. One of the mothers was very seriously injured. They’ll never get over that. But that does make them appealing to the media, who absolutely love to tell victim stories.

There’s never been any need for anyone to formulate a defence, because there have never been any charges. And for there to be no charges, there is simply insufficient evidence of a crime. That might well be because the police turned up, didn’t bother to interview anyone, didn’t review the telematics on the vehicle, didn’t breathalyse or drug test the driver, didn’t review the medical records etc. But even if all that is true - and I can believe it could be, regardless of race the met are fucking useless - there was never any need for a defence. Any solicitor in the police station would advise the same - no comment, let the police put their case. There’s no requirement to put forward a defence.

So no doubt a man whose career is in investment banking has piles of cash if needed. What I’m questioning is how much that has actually been needed up to now. If the case needed to be reopened it will be either because new evidence has come to light or the police have cocked up. It won’t be because of how much money an uncharged driver’s husband has in the bank.

You can absolutely come up with a defence at the police station, what are you on about? The police will always give you the opportunity to give your version of events when being interviewed.

When you are arrested you have the right to legal advice, it’s within PACE, it’s a human right actually. You have a consultation with your solicitor/barrister typically before interview. They’re present in the interview with you too. The quality of legal advice will absolutely vary depending on your wealth and status so I don’t know how you’re trying to bullshit.

CPS will consider prospect of conviction given potential defences at trial. So even though there has been no trial a CPS lawyer is thinking in trial mode when considering charges. So if the police have done a shit job either deliberately or negligently and the only information passed is well ‘she suffered an epileptic seizure’ then one can understand why they thought there isn’t a realistic prospect of conviction.

We need to know what the forms the basis for the gross misconduct really to understand what’s at play.

Who was the law firm?

I think during advice you could ask your lawyer ‘hypothetically, what instances are there that could be difficult to prove in this situation’. All clients are allowed time alone with their lawyer. I believe in this case the seizure wasn’t suggested until a couple of days after.

Not without taking legal advice, she wouldn’t have been interviewed. You’re forgetting that this matter is now in the public domain and there are probably a few peeps on here with legal backgrounds and knowledge of the ins and outs of the legal system. So as I said before stop trying to bshit people.

This one - it’s a seriously good law firm used by very wealthy, royalty, high net worth global individuals https://www.phb.co.uk/

And your lawyer would say ‘I cannot tell you that, I’m only here to present your defence and advise you on the law’. The level of corruption you’re alleging is enormous.

No you’re wrong about there not needing to be a defence at the point of arrest. Her lawyers would have know that this would be too serious for it NOT to be put before a CPS lawyer and therefore she needed a version of events that would put reasonable doubt in the case. Read my response to the other poster, CPS lawyers will always consider trial/ realistic prospect of conviction at the point of charge, it’s on their website.

Thanks. I don’t believe this firm represent individuals in routine crime - they do big public law type stuff, civil liberties (think protestors manhandled by police etc)

Your solicitor a very clever one that Freemantle would have no issue accessing, can fully well advise and suggest and you know that, but given client confidentiality no one will ever know right?

No, I’m not wrong about that.

At the point of arrest the police are very keen to get your version of events and she may well have given a prepared statement. But that’s not a defence (usually there is not enough evidence yet to give a full defence). It would be very unlikely in a complex case for a prepared statement to be given and most solicitors would advise against it at that point, unless you could provide your own evidence to support. For example ‘it wasn’t me, I was somewhere else and you can find me on CCTV.’ Of course, it’s possible she did that. It’s possible that she was high or drunk or on her phone, crashed the car, went away and thought ‘how can I get away with it’. But that’s run of the mill lying on her part, not corruption. And the CPS don’t review the case until after the interview and police have done case prep of their own, so I’m not sure what you mean by that part.

Mark Jones, a partner at that law firm, gave a statement on her behalf https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24413938.wimbledon-primary-school-crash-parents-unsatisfied-investigation/

It would be a potential defence that you would be anticipating for trial. Albeit in technical terms it’s the suspects version of events in practical terms you know that’s going go be her defence at trial because it’s going g to be part of your decision making process when considering charging her.

They’ve used wealthy and expensive lawyers to ‘assist’ with the epilepsy defence and it worked … up until now.

It would be illegal for them to do so. Again, anything is possible but I just can’t see why they would do that. Much more to lose than gain, unless you’re suggesting the freemantle’s have these people on a retainer in case they do insane things.

Look, she may well be lying and there’s no evidence to prove either way, but what you’re alleging is such a massive corruption. It’s not Succession! Big law firms don’t need to take bribes for this sort of thing, they make enough from legitimate business representing wealthy people in family and corporate law.

@Helpboatisn't saying a full defence would be presented at this time. But in a high profile case like this, you would want to know what the possible outcomes could be and would want to make sure that what you’re saying would be consistent with what defence you might want to put forward if this reaches trial. But ultimately, the goal here would be to make sure this didn’t go to trial

What was the gap between the crash and the first police interview, do you know?

There’s no need to anticipate a defence, if your story stacks up at interview there’s no charge. I think claiming a seizure when one didn’t happen is tremendously risky. Blacked out, fainted - maybe. But a seizure specifically?

I just think you’re both over egging it, there is no requirement to say anything at interview stage so even if a bent solicitor was telling her what to say; the best strategy is to shut up, work up a plan in the background and use it if charges are brought. Saying ‘I had a seizure’ should trigger further investigation. Now, maybe they expected that and the police just messed up but that’s phenomenally far fetched. You’re just wildly speculating and honestly I don’t know why. Do you know the people involved? I have no dog in the race at all, I just find it fascinating how people are all conspiracy theory about it.

See @Allisnotlost1 s post above. There is no need for a defence. Whether you pay a lawyer £2000 an hour or £200 an hour they will tell you to do a no comment interview so they can see what evidence the police have gathered. There is nothing to say in defence

Thanks. Interesting that the ‘recent cases’ part of his bio seems to be empty!

This is the shit hot law firm you’re referring to?

this is a completely accessible law firm.

Bribe? Massive corruption? I don’t think you know how the system works? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about at all and are arguing from be sake of argument.

Plummy Barrister: Please tell me what happened im here to help, the crash was quite serious, were you perhaps feeling unwell at the wheel?

suspecy: Urm I’m not sure … I’m in shock .. struggling to remember exactly

PB: hmm I see perhaps you blacked out ? We ought to get you checked out medically

Suspect: oh really ?

PB: yes yes there have been cases of where people have suffered seizures at the wheel and not even realised ! Don’t you worry I will let the police know and you will be out of here in no time.

The above is a work of fiction to illustrate how easy it is to ‘advise clients’ @january1244 thats the sort of law firm you would have access to via connections and wealth for sure.

That’s factually untrue because how do we know about the seizure if it wasn’t used as a defence at some point in the investigation.

it was a clever move because it destroyed any prosecution case before they even got the chance to build it.

Me too. I think it’s wild that people are so obsessed with this story to the point they’ve accused anyone talking common sense of being paid bots for the apparent master of the universe, Dominic freemantle

A work of fiction from someone who has never had a direct conversation with a lawyer, clearly.