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.

There are some real fantasist conspiracists on here. Utterly deluded about how interviews and police work

No one’s accusing you of being paid bots but you are going out of your way to defend a wealthy white woman with all the connections, dubious defence linked to police misconduct where two little dead girls lie at the end of. I’m going to leave this thread now but you ought have a think why you’re so invested in her being innocent if indeed you have no ‘dogs in this race’.

Because maybe she is innocent? Maybe she just had a seizure? You don’t know

What’s interesting is the case was re-opened and she was re-arrested last year. There is an investigation into potential gross misconduct, with multiple officers being investigated at varying levels. If none of this had happened, I’d agree, probably just conspiracy theorists. However there’s something very off about this, and it will be interesting what comes about at the end of this month when a decision is being made on whether charges will be brought

The above is a work of fiction that is either drawn from a watching too much telly, or you have an awful lot of professional conduct issues to report.

I don’t work in criminal law now but when I did we laughed at the occasional rich twat who thought they could offer money to get out of trouble, or that we could magic up a defence for them. Do you really think most of us would risk our careers and reputations, let alone our own ethics, by fabricating a defence for someone who killed two children? If you’re in the law and you do this, or witness this and do nothing, you disgust me. If you’re just getting this from the tv, sit this one out.

I don't know if she's guilty or innocent, but I wouldn't just assume she is lying. There will have been medical reports painting a more or less probable picture, and there will have been other evidence which the police should have scrutinised.

The fact that the CPS didn't charge doesn't mean she just told the police she had a seizure and they stopped investigating. They would still need to consider whether there was a case against her, including whether the seizure or epilepsy could be proved.

I think some of us are approaching this with a technical understanding and some are using colloquial terms. There’s no defence. She may have given her statement and mentioned the seizure, she may have given a prepared statement at some point - I don’t know the exact timeline. That’s not a defence, because at that point there’s nothing to defend.

I think it’s pointless explaining this to you because you are convinced something even worse has occurred than a tragic accident. If you are connected to the families somehow then I can understand that you probably feel very angry, but you’re wildly speculating and saying things that don’t stack up.

If it helps you I’m a wealthy mixed race woman. Not as wealthy as the driver, or probably the parents tbh.

I’m not defending the driver because SHE HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED SO DOESN’T NEED A DEFENCE.

Surely if she had unrestrained dogs in the car at the time of the incident then people would have seen them and reported it to the police?

It’s the optics of supporting a woman who was driving a vehicle involved in an incident that left two eight year old girls dead. A woman who hasn’t apologised.

That the victims families were able to afford private schooling really isn’t the point.

She has expressed sorrow, sympathy and devastation in a statement released to the media:

In a statement to the PA news agency, she said: “Since I became aware of the terrible event that took place on July 6, the devastating consequences for all those affected have not left my thoughts and will be with me for the rest of my life.
“I have since been diagnosed as having suffered an epileptic seizure with loss of consciousness. This was not a pre-existing condition. As a result of losing consciousness I have no recollection of what took place.
“I can only express my deepest sorrow for the families who have suffered such dreadful loss and injury.
“As a mother, I understand there can be no words that adequately express the pain and loss resulting from what happened in those horrendous moments while I was unconscious.
“My heartfelt sympathy goes out to all of the children and families affected, and especially to the parents of Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau.”

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24413938.wimbledon-primary-school-crash-parents-unsatisfied-investigation/

If she didn't have a seizure or black out in some way, that's obviously inadequate but if she did, I don't see what more she can say.

I don't think it is supporting her to say that it's possible she had a seizure and wasn't at fault - no doubt the evidence for this is being scrutinised since there is still an active police investigation and any failings in the initial investigation need to be considered too.

I thought I read at the time she issued a statement expressing all that, what do you think she is a psychopath? Do you think for some reason a person has a tragic accident and two kids are killed and the person doesnt care at all? I'd be horrified and mortified.

Oh this, cross posted. I knew I remembered something like this

My apologies - I wasn’t aware that she had released a statement to the PA news agency.

I remain surprised at the strong and persistent support for her.

' I have since been diagnosed as having suffered an epileptic seizure with loss of consciousness. This was not a pre-existing condition.'

I didn't think this was possible to diagnose like this? (There are a few comments up thread that explain why).

A quote by the lawyer representing the two families (on the website):

“there is a difference sometimes between proof and truth and what the families are trying to get to is the truth.”

Lots of misconceptions about seizures and epilepsy on this thread.

Literally all a diagnosis of epilepsy means is that you have had more than one seizure in your life. You could have them hourly caused by oxygen deprivation to the brain as a baby, or only have ever had two, with no known cause. You could have focal seizures, absence seizures, tonic clonic seizures. You could get auras or not. You could take months to recover or not. You can get a first seizure in childhood, in adulthood or old age.

It’s all just called epilepsy.

There are massive variations in how it presents and in what causes it, and for the most part what causes it is a total mystery.

Because around half people who have epilepsy (aka have had more than one seizure) will show a normal EEG, you get a diagnoses of epilepsy when a doctor determines that you’ve had more than one seizure - usually because people observed you having them or because you did something for which the best medical explanation is a seizure - like ploughing a car into a wall without breaking.

Given that this woman has apparently now been diagnosed with epilepsy, it seems pretty likely that she’s has seizures subsequently or had an EEG showing seizure activity BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU DIAGNOSE EPILEPSY.

I have no special info on this case, and no dog in this fight, but as someone who has epilepsy I think it’s important to point out the facts. It is entirely possible this woman told the truth, and if she’s subsequently had an epilepsy diagnosis that will be because a neurologist has determined she has epilepsy using the best and only available diagnostic tools - EEG and observation / reports.

If they did blood tests soon enough afterwards, if they detected a brain injury, and if they provoked seizures on an EEG they could establish a strong possibility. The diagnosis of epilepsy could be certain. The blood tests could establish recent seizure as probable. I think that's as far as you could go unless she had CCTV in her car - which I presume she hasn't.

A barrister, plummy or otherwise, is not going to be down the police station advising a client that early on in an investigation. That’s the role of a solicitor. You have no idea what you are talking about…

I think this will be the case too.

Same as the two very sad incidents we had in Scotland. Certainly in the cases we had up here it seems the Crown may have rushed into accepting it was an unforeseen medical event/no criminality and brought no charges, when further information later came out. I don’t know as much about the Wimbledon case however.

Of course if someone did have a genuine first time seizure with no warning then they can’t be liable but there should of course be thorough due diligence before that determination is reached.

Exactly, the idea of a barrister down at the cop shop!!

I work with solicitors and barristers.

I very much support the new investigation.

I also think anyone who drives a hulking great SUV should have a higher level of responsibility/culpability and that the law needs to change to reflect that.

I do t. Elieve she’s had an eeg or MRI which showed evidence of epilepsy. If this were true she surely wouldn’t have been arrested recently? So her epilepsy diagnosis must be due to self reported seizures. She may be telling the truth, she may be making it up in order to secure a diagnosis. But medically it’s a valid way of getting diagnosed. And I’d wager impossible for the police to disprove.

If you read the comments on that article you linked someone said it is a fake profile and/or AI generated.

If it is not, and is meant to be a PR thing, it’s an epic fail.

When I first read it I thought it was anti her, Im not sure how people are reading it as some sort of PR post for her.