Wimbledon school crash: Woman rearrested over deaths of two girls
Wimbledon school crash: Woman rearrested over deaths of two girls
Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau were at a school tea party when a Land Rover crashed into the playground.
I'm still amazed nobody made more noise about the fact she wasn't charged.
One can only possibly wonder why the usual suspects complaining about two tier policing and people getting away with crimes (even when convicted with lengthy sentences, yeah makes no sense) when they should be punished didn't seem too bothered about this.
At the time, her solicitor said her epilepsy had "never previously manifested itself" and Ms Freemantle "had always enjoyed good health".
Is this a real thing? Having symptomless epilepsy?
Or do they mean she had her first ever epileptic seizure while driving, and previously had never been diagnosed with it?
The wording to me implies she has been diagnosed with epilepsy but never had an epileptic seizure - that seems contradictory to me
Yeah it's real - people can have a seizure despite having no prior symptoms, and a scan won't be able to tell you they've had one unless they had it inside the MRI scanner. Unfortunately that's what makes it a plausible get-out-of-jail-free card for causing death by dangerous/distracted driving.
My brother-in-law has a slightly unusual form of epilepsy called absence seizures where he zones out and ceases to function for almost a minute at a time. It's the exact opposite of what you'd want for a driver.
However he's been on medication to treat it and hasn't had an abscence seizure in over 10 years with his current medication. He lives in Cornwall and some of the council houses he is being offered are perfect but have problems like the nearest pharmacy being 20 miles away and buses being every 3 hours. Out of curiousity we checked to see if he could learn to drive and apparently if you've not had a seizure for 2 years then you can get rubberstamped for a provisional drivers license.
Ultimately he's turning down these places due to these issues, it's not being counted as a wasted bid since the drawbacks of the property are not just him being fussy. Additionally, I'm pretty certain he lacks the gross motor skills to drive even if seizures are no longer a problem. Will need to wait to bid on more suitable properties. People who live in the country really need better amenities and public transport.
At any rate that 2 year figure struck me as being very, uh, optimistic from the DVLA. Potentially any seizure should seriously curtail your ability to gain a provisional/full license.
If it had never manifested, there wouldn't have been a diagnosis. Bad wording for sure.
Hmm. I was present when a friend discovered he had epilepsy when he had his first seizure. It was life-changingly awful for him. He had to give up his university course (chemical engineering IIRC), his planned vocation, and - amongst other things - his driving license.
If this is a genuine case then I really feel for Claire Freemantle, 48. She's discovered she's epileptic, has accidentally killed two children, and now it is being implied she did it on purpose.
Is there a way checking whether an epileptic seizure has taken place? (MRI scan showing trace evidence in the brain?) If the driver has not experienced subsequent seizures, it would be difficult to accept this one without evidence.
it would be difficult to accept this one without evidence.
Sorta not the point. We are talking about the person being accused. So reasonable doubt is in her defence.
It is down to the prosecution to either prove this is false. Or prove she had reason to know it was unsafe for her to drive.
You are right. Is a hitherto episode of epilepsy a good defence for dangerous driving in general?
I guess it could come down to whether or not the person has previous incidents of dangerous driving or they have footage or other evidence to suggest she wasn’t epileptic. If there’s no physical evidence or subsequent seizures. (I know I’m speculating and - you are right - we should assume innocence and that her account is right until shown not to be).
The whole thing seems incredible.
How is "oh it was epilepsy" a defence when you've never had an epileptic fit before? No history of it.
You've all seen a million YouTube videos of someone panicking and hitting the accelerator when they meant the brake. Unfortunately far far more likely than "invisible epilepsy".
I can't believe they didn't charge her (first time round).
She was probably haring it along Camp Road (as well-to-do Chelsea tractor types are known to do). And completely fails to take the right hand bend properly. This leads directly into the school playground.
Or, by some miracle, are we to believe that, of all the moments for it to happen, InViSiBlE ePiLePsY struck at the exact point where someone driving too fast might lose control?
Pls.. shame on the CPS..
Edit: if this is a defence that works then EVERY TRAFFIC DEATH where someone wasn't paying attention could be defended on exactly the same terms. "It was mysterious epilepsy". Crown prosecution: "well.... can't prove it wasn't. Guess there's nothing for us to do here". ffs... it's nonsense. Does she know someone influential or something..