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.

Thats the fake AI article I think?

Its been up for over a year. It keeps being quoted as if its some sort of PR for her and yet paints her in a bad light so those 2 things cant both be true.

Also puts the lie to the fact that apparently she gets everything online wiped about her.

We know the initial investigation was flawed but I think I can safely say that this would have been investigated first time.

It’s 6 points and has been since 2017.

Both of these things can be true. She can be a pillar of the community as well as having a formidable legal team who will defend that image. This is what paints her in a bad light and casts doubt on how innocent she claims to be. Especially as she's lawyered up with a prestigious law firm known for playing hard ball.

The vocal media article states she has been living with epilepsy and another article says her medical records states she's not had any symptoms. Both of these things can be true; she can have epilepsy and be symptom free but if she's not had any symptoms then how does she know she has it? And why drive a mini lorry when you know you have a condition which could cause you to black out?

The vocal media article is of no help, because it says she has a syndrome she can't possibly have. Sufferers from LGS typically require 24/7 care because of cognitive impairment and constant refractory seizures: they are not able to obtain a driving licence. The motivation behind the article is opaque to say the least.

So far as I can see, the only possible development is that someone has come forward to say she had had at least one ‘funny turn’ prior to the crash, which in hindsight might have been a seizure. Whether she guessed or suspected a seizure, or just assumed she had fainted or blacked out, and whether she should have asked doctors to investigate further, will be the point t if the trial I guess.

The original investigating team at the Met are being investigated themselves so it’s unlikely to be just that someone has come forward to say she had already had some funny turns.

That investigation is ongoing though - the new evidence that's allowed them to charge has already been collected.

It's unlikely that these misconduct investigations are expected to uncover anything related to the new charges.

I don't think you can be prosecuted for not going to the doctors. As an example, I could imagine that given all the hassle about travel insurance you might not bother for that reason - and then not have any more "funny turns" or other symptoms like headaches and forget about it.

If she had gone to the doctors it would have been on her records and they'd have found that the first time.

It may be that they are just going through the motions - they've had lots of criticism so they are taking it to trial. A jury may find her not guilty regardless. Or a judge may even direct an acquittal. It's why it needs to go to trial really so the issues can be properly heard and it gets put to bed one way or another.

yes agree with this the investigation is into the police handling not the crash. It hasn’t been going long enough to have caused another criminal investigation to result in a charge Friday imo

Shouldn't her car have slowed down once it hit the pavement? It's a high tech super SUV that has the capacity to do that. AEBs (autonomous emergency braking) in Land Rover Defender is a safety feature.

I wonder if the parents themselves unearthed new evidence and it is that that has resulted in the prosecution and the investigation into the police’s own efforts?

because the police shpuld have unearthed it themselves

The criminal investigation was reopened more than a year ago. If it was given to a new team, and they found evidence not found by the original team, that would be reason to then open an investigation into the original team, for doing a slipshod job.

It's still weird. Of all the things the police do routinely, RTC investigations are the most routine, verging on automated. Things like bloods, phone data, photographic and video evidence of trajectory and speed - they would all be collected before anyone had the chance to nobble the process.

Which leaves the possibility that the driver knew she had been fitting but didn't tell her doctor and carried on driving – an astonishingly stupid thing to do, if so (and I wonder how they found out, in the end).

Yep, these cars are super high tech and should stop when obstructed

I don’t think they are designed to stop at high speed? My car has an auto emergency brake which kicked in once in slow moving trafic, gave me a fright!

Im saying the article cant be a) a PR stunt for her and yet at the same time b) paints her in a bad light, those things are at odds with each other

It suggests she has always had epilepsy whereas she is said to have stated she didnt have/didnt know she had epilepsy, so it paints her in a bad light as it contradicts what she apparently had claimed.

Not sure about this- technology changes quickly on cars and it’s appears to be at least a few years old in 2023

I have a high performance model- my last was a 2023 and I don’t think it would’ve stopped dead but would’ve warned me. I’ve just got a new 2026 model and I believe it would stop at an obstruction.

Don’t all new cars now have some form of autonomous braking? Like @lovealieinortwoive had a bit of a shock when it’s momentarily kicked in when I’ve been driving because of a perceived obstruction, eg sometimes with traffic calming measures there might be a kerb or chicane and the angle of the car means the sensor picks up an obstruction. But I guess if a very heavy vehicle is going at speed, even if the brake kicks in when it hits a kerb, once it’s mounted the kerb, wouldn’t the vehicle continue?

im pretty sure it’s different at high speeds but can’t be sure as I don’t enough about the tech or how it’s progressed. Presumably you can also disable it.

https://www.landrover.co.uk/explore-land-rover/about-suvs/defender-capability.html according to this some models even have a driver condition monitoring system as well as automatic emergency braking.

So much of this accident doesn't make sense at all.

These are new cars though. That car is older

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq32r3zwpro

I was watching The Crash - Netflix documentary - and the driver’s attempted defence there was “medical episode”. The authorities were sceptical..