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.

Yes those that make a lifestyle/routine out of criminality yes.

Agree with your first para. Most people do their test in something like a Yaris (I did mine in a Micra) and so then driving something the size of a small bus should require more evidence of competence.

But I am tempted to say that anyone who has an accident in an SUV is deemed responsible unless they can prove otherwise (and if there's two SUVs they can fight it out between them).

I agree @igelkott2026 re SUVs they are like tanks those cars.

Anyone in a collision with them is going to be in big trouble.

A normal run around car wouldn’t have done the damage that car did, its size and weight.
It is all about status symbols the biggest house, the biggest car…😦.

If you look at Land Rovers website they describe the car as the unstoppable 4x4. It’s not a regular car it’s an off road machine.

Doesn’t sound like the right job for you if you struggle to call people ‘people’.

But I am tempted to say that anyone who has an accident in an SUV is deemed responsible unless they can prove otherwise (and if there's two SUVs they can fight it out between them).

Do you mean you think the SUV driver should be responsible regardless of their actions? So if someone reverses into them, or runs a red light and rams them, it’s still their fault?

They are people, I didnt say they werent, I was responding to someone who asked whether other people would have concessions in court and I pointed out a whole class of people, group of people if you prefer (I think you're getting hung up on the word class) who are in and out of court a lot and who are vulnerable have a huge number of concessions made for them. Concessions are made every day in courts up and down the land. Its not unusual.

The purpose of a trial is not to test the defence.

The purpose of a criminal trial is for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a criminal offence has been committed.

A person may choose to put a defence in; they may choose to simply pick apart the evidence of the prosecution to put doubts in the minds of the jurors and therefore not meet the burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt); they may choose, in rare cases, to do neither and let the prosecutions evidence speak for itself.

And just to pre-empt: this woman may never stand in the dock and give evidence/be crossed examined. It will be a tactical choice of her legal team - will her giving evidence be beneficial to challenge the burden of proof?

Of course you’re correct, I phrased it that way in response to the pp’s comment about the quality of the defence.

I’m ‘hung up’ on you referring to your clients - who you describe as vulnerable - as ‘the criminal classes’. It’s just not a view I’d expect any kind of support worker to hold about their clients.