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 ?

I’m not arguing but unlike you prefer to keep an open mind. I hope the review provides all those impacted with closure.

There’s nothing ‘open minded’ about failing to understand and/or acknowledge such things as the difference between a witness and a significant witness.

Not necessarily. It deiebdsxwfat you mean by aftermath

Of you mean immediately after the car hit the dc and stopped there could absolutely still be key evidence.

If a driver got out brandishing bottle if vodka and slurring for example

I didn't say seeing the aftermath means you definitely do not need to give a formal statement. I didn't speak in absolutes.

Seeing the aftermath doesn't mean you are also a key witness. It might do or it might not. Again not speaking in absolutes.

So I don't understand which bit you are saying 'not necessarily' to?

Allegedly unconscious. Were you there?

‘Louder for the insensitive person who wrote this post’ - read what the parents and teachers said about the investigation.

I did, as I also read the words of those parroting them. That’s precisely what I have been addressing.

No. But I would certainly take the word of the CPS over a conspiracy theorist on Mumsnet…

Me too - which conspiracy theorist are you referring to? The bereaved families and teaching staff have flagged genuine concerns about the evidence / investigation process and the police are undertaking a review.

The CPS have made a statement that the driver will not be prosecuted because this was a case of “automatism”. If there was any doubt about that, even some weakness in the medical evidence they would let it proceed to court for a jury to decide as they did with the case I was involved with. Whatever the concerns of the families and teachers, which they are bound to have, they do not have access to the evidence that led to the CPS decision. The families have not even questioned that decision, only the investigation process. If you think something else happened on that day to explain events, then yes I think you are a conspiracy theorist

The CPS based their decision on the evidence available to them at that time - those impacted have publicly queried the evidence collection process. If there are issues however with the evidence and / or new evidence relating to the circumstances of the incident become available as part of the police review and its deemed relevant to the case those impacted may ask the CPS to consider a review of their decision making process (an appeal). Does that make sense? You seem intent on a bun fight a personally I prefer to keep an open mind. Have a nice day (and stop throwing buns!)

Famous conspirasist Rowley thinks something's up with the CPS

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-sir-mark-rowley-crown-prosecution-service-cps-cherry-picking-easy-cases-b1082022.html?trk=feed-detail_main-feed-card_feed-article-content

Thinking the police and prosecution service could be more confidence inspiring isn't much of a conspiracy theory

No it does not make sense! The CPS would not have determined that this was a case of autoism if they did not have definitive proof, beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise it would have gone to court. I was involved in a case where the medical evidence was fairly conclusive, but not definitive. The jury were asked to consider all the additional evidence, from witnesses, CCTV etc. to decide whether they were consistent with the medical diagnosis. The verdict was that the prosecution had not proved beyond all reasonable doubt it was not autoism but that the balance of probability was that it was.

You seem to miss the point that in the legal process once autoism is proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the CPS have decided it is, then all other evidence becomes irrelevant in the legal process. Whilst the families might understandably want all the evidence to come out it is not going to change the legal decision not to prosecute.

There is medical evidence to support her having had a seizure, presumably anomalies deduced by brain scans and markers in the blood. There is no suggestion that any relevant evidence has been discounted by the police, and unhappiness at the outcome is not in fact evidence of this in itself. Similarly, the head teacher believing she should have been asked to give a statement, does not mean a statement from her was necessary and would contribute anything to the investigation. That she does not agree with this does not reflect a failure to investigate.

The families seem to object to not being able to see the full body of evidence the police have had access to, but a significant portion of that evidence will be the driver’s medical records, something they do not have the right to access.

I doubt the investigation is going to change the outcome in any way, and isn’t merely a gesture to calm troubled waters. Perhaps there were faults in the investigation however, and if so those faults should be uncovered. The complaints printed in the media do not support this notion though.

Except Sir Mark is saying that they are cherry picking easy cases to prosecute. I have evidence that in the case of autoism they do in fact think that they are easy cases to prosecute if there is any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence. That makes sense. If an accident results in people, especially children, being killed or severely injured and there is the slightest doubt that the driver was not suffering autoism then a jury is going to be examining that doubt very closely as they did in the case I was involved with, where a child nearly died and spent six months in hospital. I hope the parents over the three days the case took felt that justice had been served though the evidence gathering about the events from that day was actually inadequate to the point of negligence. However what did emerge was consistent with the medical diagnosis, hence the verdict.

I’m not a lawyer but this is what it states on the CPS website:

‘If our prosecutor decides the case doesn't pass our legal test, the suspect will not be prosecuted.
In these cases, victims have a right to ask us to look at our decision again. A different prosecutor will review the evidence and decide whether the original decision was correct or should be overturned.
They will then write to the victim to let them know the outcome of this review and explain how they made their decision’.

It’s good that they give the victims that right but in a high profile case like this and with the time that elapsed before they were given the evidence do you really think they took a decision not to prosecute without conclusive medical evidence? That provided they do not need any other evidence and, provided with further evidence, even if that proved she was a terrible driver, managed to get out of the car after etc. etc. etc. the decision is not going to change. The school community have every right to question the process but they have legal advice and are not challenging the legal decision not to prosecute.

It was a private school in one of the most expensive areas of the country, all involved would be wealthy.

I grew up not far from there, in a much cheaper part of Wimbledon. I am in my 40's, I remember Mum's complaining back when I was in Primary school about those huge cars that the rich women were using. I do agree that in an area like that, were the roads are narrow and there is lots of traffic, limited parking, that those cars are not necessary.

And what’s the relevance of any of this. Doesn’t matter how expensive her lawyers were, if there’s evidence that she genuinely had a seizure at the time of the accident then she’s not responsible. Doesn’t matter how wealthy she is, how narrow the roads are, what the parking was like, or what she was driving. It was an accident brought about by a seizure during which she lost consciousness.