School car crash - are the police being thrown under the bus?

[mids2019]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15732723/Police-biased-female-killed-girls-crash-Wimbledon.html

I remember starting a thread on this some time ago and I think the general conclusion was that epilepsy (undiagnised) would in all likelihood be the reason for this tragedy given the cirumstances. there was a long discussion about the nature of this consition.

There was also the feeling that the parents should grieve and let go after this tragedy yet it appears the thing has escalated to involve racism and questioning of the investigation resulting to my mind the police being pressured to make another arrest simply because the senior met didn't like the optics of this rather than material change in circusrance.

Are those investigating officers being thrown.under the bus because the met politically would like to see something done here with a rich white woman being talked when there seems to be no evidence at all she didn't have a seizure? If it realistically can't be proven a seizure didn't occur aren't we headed for a painful trial for the parents where they gain will feel justice won't be done???

I suspect if she had had a dog in the car we would have heard about it by now.

I think this is the problem/question - we've heard very little. Many are saying there was a dog or dogs. Who knows.

I feel a slippery slope - what is to stop anyone causing a car accident claiming they had a previously undiagnosed epileptic fit?

My DC drove into and injured a group of cyclists, doing time trail laps on a dual carriageway. Blinding sun meant the cyclists were obscured as DC crossed carriageway at a junction.
DC charged and faced the severe consequences. Devastating for our family and the family of the cyclist.
Perhaps an epileptic fit should have been given as the cause rather than being blinded by the sun.

True

but by your own argument, that includes a sense of responsibility! If a car has a fault there is no way of you knowing about, and wouldn't be picked up in an MOT - as happens fairly often, there's nothing the driver could possibly have done, if experienced professional engineers didn't pick it up.

Exactly the same with medical issues - if there is absolutely no hint that anything is wrong until the first time someone suffers an attack, how on earth could they blamed for that?

She IS facing the consequences of causing the death of two children and will be every day for the rest of her life. What the parents of the children 'want' those consequences to be is of no relevance, legally, and shouldn't be. That's not how our justice system works, luckily! What if they 'wanted' capital punishment. The law is the law for a reason. To put the same restrictions on this woman as any other sufferer of epilepsy, and if that means removing her license would be fair. Removing her license as a punishment for something that she had no control over wouldn't be.

What job do you do? I'm sure if a mistake happened you had absolutely no control over you wouldn't agree it would be fair for you to be sacked because you should face the consequences of the impact on the organisation!

Not really a slippery slope, given that she’s far the first person claimed to have had an accident due to previously undiagnosed epilepsy. They don’t just take the driver’s word for it. In this case, what they did gather from their investigation did not contradict her version of events, and the onus was on them to prove that she was culpable for the accident. The CPS needed to see evidence that a crime had been committed, of the standard required to justify a prosecution, and they didn’t have it.

Her choice of car is not a crime, and not something she needs to justify. She hired legal representation at a price she could afford? That’s exactly what she should have done. Anyone under police investigation should have legal representation. That isn’t ‘suspicious’, that’s smart. She had her name (somewhat) scrubbed from the internet? Can’t blame her for that one either, and it’s again not suggestive of guilt. If you had been involved in something horribly traumatic, and it wasn’t your fault, would you want to be blasted all over the internet and held up as a hate figure because of it? I do not doubt she was, and is, receiving multiple death threats against not just herself, but against her own children too.

Claire and her friends join Mumsnet. Sounds like a book!

"what they did gather from their investigation did not contradict her version of events"

What about what they didn't gather? Including key witness statements - which perhaps did contradict her version of events.

If the police actually did fail to gather key witness statements, which may or may not have contradicted her account, that’s their failing. Not hers.

Yes, in preparation for just this moment I 1, got a legal education, and 2, joined mumsnet over a decade ago as a sleeper agent.

The conspiracy runs deep.

That I’m disinclined to suspend all logic in order to jump on the bandwagon against her does not mean that I know her.

To be entirely fair, I have a link to this case (not from the driver’s perspective, the other one) and I have a legal education and have been a member of mumsnet for over 15 years. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that just because you’re a member of mumsnet and have a legal background, therefore you can’t possibly be connected to CF. (Not saying you are, by the way, but it doesn’t need to be a vast ‘conspiracy’ for all those things to be simultaneously true!)

I was being purposefully hyperbolic in response to the lazy ad hominem.

I don’t actually disagree with you. It’s of course possible, but I doubt it’s particularly likely. It’s not true in my case, anyway.

Not really a slippery slope, given that she’s far the first person claimed to have had an accident due to previously undiagnosed epilepsy. They don’t just take the driver’s word for it. In this case, what they did gather from their investigation did not contradict her version of events, and the onus was on them to prove that she was culpable for the accident. The CPS needed to see evidence that a crime had been committed, of the standard required to justify a prosecution, and they didn’t have

Aren’t we saying the same?
I’m confused?

If my DC claimed to have knocked over the cyclists due to previously undiagnosed epilepsy, police would not have taken my DC’s ( the driver’s) word for it.
If what was gathered from the investigation did not contradict his version of events, the onus was on them to prove that he was culpable for the accident.

What would the medical evidence be (no prior evidence of epilepsy?) - which of course is the case, because his claim would be a lie.

Instead he told the truth about not being able to see for low sun and not expecting that a group of cyclists were carrying out time trials, in Laos on the dual carriage way. He was charged.

I'm not sure what the fact she didn't do it deliberately has to do with anything? You can still be at fault even if something wasn't deliberate.

The evidence could include:

Biting through the tongue at the scene
Results of blood tests taken within 20 minutes or so
An EEG showing abnormal activity at any time
An MRI showing abnormal lesions
Behaviour immediately before and after the accident
Forensic evidence from the car - braking and acceleration patterns.

The problem is that you could have an epileptic seizure and have none of this evidence. They vary a lot.

I was surprised to see a (to be fair, unverified) eyewitness account of the driver in this case having bitten through her tongue (and photos would show whether this was done in a way typical for seizures). If that evidence really exists, I'm not surprised the police didn't go ahead and seek charges. From the controversy, I'd assumed it was all about later tests

If someone claims to have had epilepsy without any of the above features, or can only show they have it but with no evidence of a seizure at the time? That would be much harder to defend.

Somebody posted a link in another thread to a case where the driver was found guilty even with a later diagnosis of epilepsy. What's missing is any suggestion of evidence of a seizure at the right time.

That sounds dreadful for your DC and all involved and must feel very unfair. It sounds as if inventing a seizure likely wouldn't have helped though.

The point is that she hasn’t set a precedent, and that it also isn’t a defense that can be used as an easy get out of jail free card. The police don’t just shrug and take the drivers word for it.

We don’t know exactly what medical evidence the police saw during the investigation, but evidence that would support a fit would be structural abnormality of the brain, electrical activity associated with epilepsy, further convulsions, tonic/ atonic changes, confusion, dizziness, and hallucinations. A witness stated that she had bitten through her tongue. That she wasn’t charged would suggest that, even if they didn’t find conclusive evidence of a seizure, they failed to find anything in her medical records and/or post crash medical appraisal that indicated she was lying.

The crash would have been forensically investigated. Data recovered from the car also didn’t indicate that she was lying. Unless someone is deliberately trying to crash, they will steer and/or brake in an attempt to avoid doing so. This is something that you would also expect to see physical evidence of on the road and/or vehicle. CCTV of the area would also have been reviewed. Absence of evidence contradicting her account isn’t conclusive proof that she told the truth, but it does support her claim.

Your son told the truth. We don’t know that this woman didn’t also tell the truth.

completely different scenario. Anyone with half a braincell and experience of driving could be expected to anticipate that sun in eyes = reduces vision and slow down accordingly. even more so at a junction, where you're supposed to stop regardless!

Your DC being a crap driver has no relevance to whether this woman was.

If you've never had an epileptic fit before or any symptoms how on earth can you safeguard against it? The only way for anyone to be 100% sure they will never hurt anyone else in a car accident is to not drive at all and most people aren't willing to do that.

Do you drive?

He did stop. He waited.
He moved to cross over the carriageway. He was worried that he was sitting stationary and another car would hit him (also due to the sun).
It was an accident, that he regrets too.

I am not defending him, he was punished.
You don’t need to be on the offensive or so rude.

I suppose to those carefully explaining @InterIgnis @Oftenaddled I am playing devils advocate using this experience to understand the incident the thread is talking about.

In the news today that she will find out if she faces criminal charges. With a photo of her walking her dog.

Thinking of the families of Nuria and Selena and the others injured that day

Just seen on the BBC website that Freemantle has been charged with causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving.

Woman charged over fatal London school crash www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2026d7586zo

Hopefully one step closer to finding out what actually happened.

It just came up on the news on TV.

And her comes the racism….

the families look financially rich too

😂😂😂
very much sounds like it could be