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.

<a class="break-all" href="https://removepaywalls.com/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15743095/wealthy-Wimbledon-crash-Land-Rover-driver-unanswered-questions.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://removepaywalls.com/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15743095/wealthy-Wimbledon-crash-Land-Rover-driver-unanswered-questions.html

paywall removed

I cant read those articles

You can read most articles behind a paywall by pasting the URL into archive.ph.
MN allows it now.

Yes, used one of the archive sites. It outlines the failings of the investigation very well and provides a good summary.

The article says CF tested negative for drugs/alchol, and that she has a diagnosis that was reviewed by a CPS expert. So I’m not sure it supports the fantastical claims by some here that the police just believed her because she’s a rich white woman.

What do you think the failings are, based on the article? It’s just as vague as any other speculative report imo.

No, I don’t. Thank God! 😜

The article also says that, unusually, key witnesses who saw her get out of the car - who would normally as routine be asked to give statements, which could help confirm a medical episode - were not interviewed.
There are varying accounts of what people saw that day. Why do you think they weren't asked to give their accounts? Genuine question.

Yes Ive managed to read it now and wondering what Im missing

She was apparently seen to be confused on leaving the vehicle, a doctor commissioned by the police diagnosed her. Reviewed by CPS expert.

What more is there to say

Did the police have to interview everyone on the scene, was there a need (I dont know what the standard process is)?

It's interesting that the MSM seem to be picking this story up again in the last few days.

It does, and I’ve read that before. I can see the argument, but it’s not that unusual IME for there to be handful of witnesses and not all be asked for statements when there is either forensic evidence or a general agreement on what happened. If, for example, all the witnesses said ‘the driver seemed drunk’ but in fact she wasn’t, would it matter that they’d all been interviewed?

If the investigation focused on the data from the car and driver’s phone, excluded drugs or alcohol, received a legitimate medical report and investigated prior medical history, it could be legitimate that they didn’t interview everyone at the scene.

I don’t think we know for certain who was or wasn’t interviewed - AFAIK the former head has expressed surprise that she wasn’t interviewed but hasn’t disputed apparent evidence from other witnesses who say driver was disoriented and had bitten through her tongue. (Not certain if that’s factual or speculative either tbh).

It could be that the failure to interview is part of the misconduct but doesn’t in itself change the known facts.

Have you even read the article, the full file is back with the CPS to make a charging decision. There’s no limitation of proceedings for any offences that they would be considering. No one has got her off of anything yet.

As previously stated, it’s impossible to tell if the driver had a one-off episode or not. Stupidly (and I’ll never do it again) I drove in a pair of wellies recently. My toe got stuck under the pedal and I was out of control until I yanked my foot out. Had I done something terrible, I suppose I could have said (or been advised to say afterwards) that I’d had a “medical episode”.

That’s the problem. The driver may have been telling the truth. But if they weren’t, how could the Crown prove otherwise?

That’s the nature of an adversarial system, the Crown have to prove it.

Imagine you had had a medical
episode, had got out of your car and witnesses said ‘well MaturingCheeseball was wearing wellies so we can’t possibly believe they didn’t get their toe stuck and failed to brake’?

An 'anonymous witness' spoke to the local newspaper and gave the bitten tongue/disoriented statement. Perhaps other witnesses do not share the same version of events. The head teacher is never going to speak publicly about her own version of events.

And that’s the problem isn’t it, we don’t know what various witnesses have said, or who has been interviewed - nor should we at this stage. But therefore it’s all speculation. Should the head have been interviewed? Impossible to say.

Of course it's speculation- but with 16 people injured, 10 needing hospital treatment and 2 deaths - I'd have expected those present to have been asked to give accounts of what they saw that day.

Ok. 🤷‍♀️ We’ll find out from the IOPC if anything was amiss with that. But I wouldn’t automatically assume that everyone at a scene should be interviewed, as it’s often not the case and not necessary.

If she did indeed bite through her tongue at the usual angle for an epileptic seizure, they wouldn't need eyewitness evidence to confirm that. It would be obvious from medical examination at the scene. And that is usually taken as a strong indicator that someone has just had an epileptic seizure, and would explain why a medic contracted by the police might support the diagnosis.

As for the post-ictal state, the degree and the duration of confusion is highly variable, so I'm not sure witnesses would have a huge amount to add by the time she got out of the car.

There's a lot to verify, but the information in this article does help with a coherent version of the epilepsy narrative.

Interesting similar case in Bristol with a pedestrian killed. Driver has subsequently being diagnosed with epilepsy. However the big difference is she’s been found guilty in court. Death by careless driving. Her defence said it was likely the epilepsy was the reason for the incident.

not sure if there’s more to it, why the police have prosecuted this woman and not the Wimbledon one.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c895n391vkdo

Different police force I would venture might be why the driver has been referred to the CPS and then prosecuted.

Maybe. But surely the law is nationwide? So are you saying the Met is incompetent and didn’t do what they should? Everyone has been saying well you can’t prosecute someone for a seizure when they didn’t know they had epilepsy. But here we have someone who has been prosecuted.

The article related to the prosecuted woman states “The court was told Fiona Hodge had suffered a number of "weird" episodes linked to undiagnosed epilepsy before the crash.” as far as we are aware the Wimbledon driver hasn’t previously had any symptoms. That is a major difference.

Interesting. The article mentions the driver having no seizure history but ‘weird episodes’. Guess more will come out in the sentencing remarks. I didn’t check the timing but wonder if this case prompted the review/rearrest.

Where’s the racism come into it? We don’t know what race the perp, guilty or innocent, is, or the background of the victims.

It’s unlikely everyone involved is the same race, let alone the policemen, naturally, but I don’t get it.

Bit odd.

Anyway, 16 people is a hell of a lot to get away with. I’m not surprised accusations are flying.