To actually feel sorry for the woman driving the car in the Wimbledon car accident

[bagpuss90]

I’m sure I’ll be flamed here . I totally sympathise with the bereaved parents- I can’t stress that enough. I can understand them wanting justice . As we know the driver of the car suffered an epileptic seizure at the wheel - she had no history of epilepsy. I don’t see what she could have done differently. She has to live with what she did although it wasn’t her fault. AIBU to feel quite sorry for her ?

There has been a ‘proper investigation’, and the inquest is still to be heard.

That there may have been a failure to adequately communicate with the parents, if indeed it isn’t the case that they’ve asked questions the police were not at liberty to answer, does not mean there hasn’t been a proper investigation. That the parents are deeply unhappy at the decision of the CPS also doesn’t mean that either.

There is a huge element of racism at play by the way people on MN speak of this and the way they’re ‘automatically’ on the white woman’s side. The truth is had the victims been white and the murderer been Indian or Asian or black the Met WOULD have investigated to the full extent of the law.

I for one want the police to tell us why they disregarded the school teachers and parents when they told them (allegedly) that the woman was spotted, repeatedly, speeding on that road & that she struggled to manovre / park her car. A sudden fit after a crash by a known speeder does seem suspicious.

I thought she seemed pretty sorry in that Times article. Yes she didn't use the actual words "I'm sorry" but she expressed her deepest sorrow for the parents. What is she expected to say? She doesn't need to apologise for having a seizure. That was something totally outwith her control but it is quite clear from that article that she feels for the parents and, as she said, it will live with her for the rest of her life.

Honestly, I can see the mentality which led to the Salem Witch Trials in some posters here.

The truth is had the victims been white and the murderer been Indian or Asian or black the Met WOULD have investigated to the full extent of the law.

There is no 'murderer' in this case though.

It has been investigated to the full extent of the law. There is no murderer, or even someone that can be held accountable for causing accidental death.

Louder for those in the back:

”That there may have been a failure to adequately communicate with the parents, if indeed it isn’t the case that they’ve asked questions the police were not at liberty to answer, does not mean there hasn’t been a proper investigation. That the parents are deeply unhappy at the decision of the CPS also doesn’t mean that either.”

What is relevant is the woman’s behavior on that day, and what the medical evidence showed. It isn’t a case that she could just say ‘it was a seizure’ and be believed, it had to be and was thoroughly investigated. The accident wasn’t caused by driving she was in, in any way, control of.

Both things can be true, she could be “known” to speed, she can also have had a seizure.

HTH

There is not a “huge” amount of racism at play. I would be the first to call out racism in both the Met and the press and I could concede the story could well have been treated differently if the driver (who murdered nobody ) had been black. However there isn’t even a sniff of racism in the way even the most racist tabloids have presented this story of the tragic deaths of two middle class girls, nor of the families, or in the way the Police have handled the case.

Indeed in the case I was involved with where the driver was black the Police really didn’t collect the evidence they should. No forensic teams at the crash site, no chasing up the witnesses in the cars alongside that could have given the fullest account of the path of the car. Nobody seems to have thought it merited any press coverage or even to be treated by the police beyond giving it to a green uniformed officer to do what he could in his spare time. Perhaps that was because cases where people are unconscious and cause a tragic accident are actually not that exceptional?

As to the woman’s normal driving, as well as being irrelevent given she was unconscious and driving skills were neither here nor there, how does anyone know? Camp Road serves the school and then further on a golf club and car park on the common. She was coming from the latter, she wasn’t parked by the school and wouldn’t ever have needed to park by the school unless she was a parent. Do the school and its parents patrol the golf club and common car parks watching SUV drivers to assess their driving skills? It is hearsay and not believable hearsay either.

Sorry I missed that the racism was allegedly by Mumsnetters, so another conspiracy theory. We are racists as well as friends of the driver, lovers of SUVs, and epilepsy sufferers worried about the automatic right to drive again after a year that does not exist. In my case all of these are ironically about as far from the truth as you could get…….

Why would you refer to the driver as the murderer ? And given that the medical evidence clearly supports that she had a seizure why would you question the opinions of medics who are a lot more qualified than you, and have access to the full facts ? And the fact is that this has been investigated to the full extent of the law - borne out by the fact that there will be an inquest. If the police are in possession of evidence which exonerates the driver then questioning the witnesses is pointless as it doesn’t make any difference to the outcome. Whether or not she was seen speeding is conjecture and can’t be verified and makes absolutely no difference if she had a seizure at the time of the accident.

The police have got access to the drivers’ medical evidence. It indicates clearly that she has been diagnosed with a seizure disorder. As a result there is a decision not to prosecute because she was not responsible by reason of being unconscious at the time. And it’s not just a case of photocopying and handing out to all and sundry - how naive. There will have been extensive testing for evidence of seizure and that will have been handed over to the relevant authorities. But you have to remember that medical evidence is confidential so not everyone connected with the case will have the right to see it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that there has been a lack of transparency.

Errr hello! What police work have you actually been doing for the last year then? Have you all been on a cruise?

The small team that would have investigated this collision are not solely dedicated to this one incident.
They would be dealing with fatal and serious injury collisions that they have previously attended that are ongoing as well as that attending any life changing and fatal collisions that have happened since this one.
They will be interviewing drivers and re-interviewing them obtaining witness statements, acting as family liaison officers, attending court proceedings and coroner’s hearings. Producing all the evidence needed, making cctv enquiries, recreating conditions if necessary.
Dealing with the trauma of attending some of the most traumatic events imaginable, people of all ages crushed, decapitated, burned alive, dying in front of them.

Have you all been on a cruise? You have no idea,

And their investigation was hampered by a lack of adequately trained forensic crash investigators

So now it’s racist to support the driver because she’s white ? The support l’ve seen has been based on the facts as reported - nothing ‘automatic’ about it. Do you not think this thread is unpleasant enough without levelling accusations of racism at those who are capable of understanding more than one point of view ?

The headmistress who was at the scene of the incident said during her Radio 4 interview that she was surprised that the police had not asked her for a witness statement. If key witnesses weren’t interviewed it’s hardly a full investigation.

She didn't witness the accident. She was elsewhere.

Not being asked for a statement doesn’t mean they weren’t interviewed though. It depends on what they ‘witnessed’ and whether their statement would be useful or admissible. First responders to an incident will talk to potential witnesses and there are many reasons why they may not take a statement. In the headmistress’s case l read somewhere that she didn’t actually witness the accident itself. In that event she wouldn’t be a key witness so why would she think a statement from her would be necessary ? It doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a full investigation. Lots of assumptions here.

Can you link to evidence of that ?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/wimbledon-school-crash-forensic-officers-delay-case-lzmq2ms82

Explains the delay. Does not mean the investigation was inadequate.

The police have agreed to undertake a review of the case so no assumptions being made.

You absolutely were making an assumption when you described the head as a key witness. And another when you said her not being interviewed, which you wrongly conflated with not being asked to give a statement, means it's hardly a full investigation.

You dont know, and the fact that there's a review now happening is even more reason for you not to assume.

She didn’t witness it, so by definition wasn’t a ‘key witness’.

Disgraceful that we don't have enough crash experts to avoid this kind of delay.

Of course you were making assumptions, or you wouldn’t have described the head as a key witness - she didn’t actually witness the incident. You also assumed that she hadn’t been interviewed, when what she actually said in the radio interview was that she hadn’t been asked to make a statement, not that she hadn’t been interviewed.

Pot Kettle Black. You don’t know either and seem to be making your own assumptions - I personally think the police reviewing their handling of the case is a positive step.

Hardly. You categorically did call someone, who didn’t witness the accident, a ‘key witness’. Conversely, the poster you’re quoting rightly pointed out that there’s a difference between someone being interviewed, and someone giving a statement. She didn’t say that the headteacher had in fact been subject to either.