Serious crash investigations - are they?

[candor]

Can anyone answer this.

After a fatal crash when the road was closed off for three hours and some dangerous driver killed another in a head on should there be a written crash report?

I have been trying under the OIA to get ahold of one for three years regarding my Mothers death, and finally the Police sent me their much censored file they had kept delaying giving me - that was a long twenty eight days.

Having watched that NZ crash investigation program on tv I was under the impression serious crash investigators wrote a report saying what happened and the likely speeds etc.

All that the Police provided was a pencil sketch of positions of vehicles and debri and skid marks.

I can't figure out what happened as the witness accounts conflict and there is no written crash analyses.

All there is is a few pages stating the outcome of the vehicle inspections of all involved vehicles.

Should there be a report regarding what happened or not. I was fore warned the crash report was "shoddy" but I did not expect it to be invisible.

Do these things exist or do you only get a pencil sketch diagram? One that would be bugger all use in court surely.

I asked Police today why there would be no explanation of how the crash happened as surely Police would need a theory if they planned to put some one in jail.

The answer was - "it is not for us to establish how a crash happens - that is for the court".

When I said "how can the court do that with no description of likely events eg this car hit this one then spun right and then this one braked just before hitting this one at this location" but the answer was a simple "I don't know".

I was told to go to the ombudsman and appeal all the withheld info but not told if it contained a crash analyses write up.

Could anyone who knows tell me if this is likely to exist, given the crash was daytime and not in the wops or anything - do serious crash investigators write or only just do pencil sketches that leave you none the wiser?

Any knowledgeable help here much appreciated. This mystery is a real hoha.

[Drum]

There would have been a POL 550 filled out. Did they give you this report?

[candor]

Yep and a 565 but they only give the briefest details (two lines) and seem like they must be just the initial impression from any old attending cop, as the form says it must be given to LTNZ within three days.

There is also a thing dated two weeks later called "fatal crash report" but it only includes several photos of individual vehicles involved and four pages of stuff abou the conditions of the vehicles involved signed by a "vehicle compliance inspector".

There is the same two line brief crash description as was on the ?inaccurate 560 form. This vehicle obsessed "fatal crash report" is labelled vcr40301 and cho4/039

But I remember the cops saying they did not get the crash report for months.

And lastly there are the several very detailed pencil sketches that look like they are done by a real crash investigator, just floating round loosely in the file with no label or signature or any clue of their origin or explanatory write up. ????

Surely a multi vehicle multi injury fatal crash report is not just a virtual one liner? Here is the total crash report from the document called LTSA "fatal crash report" (lifted straight from the 560) and the only blurb attached to heaps of photos of wreck vehicles involved in this mystifying report.

"I am a senior vehicle compliance manager, on (date) I received a telephone call from detective x to inspect a private motor car involved in a fatal crash. The inspection was carried out at the vehicle recovery premises the following day. Background to crash - The above vehicle was traveling south when it clipped another vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, spun out of control and collided with a car following the first vehicle it had clipped."

Thats it! And it doesn't fit any witness descriptions of what actually transpired which was a lot more complicated than that!

[spudchucka]

The reports generated by the serious crash teams are very comprehensive. Not sure if its a disclosable document though. If the crash was investigated by one of the SCU teams then there should be a lengthy report somewhere. Perhaps you should try to find out whether or not the SCU people have actually had any involvement. Where was the crash?

[Drum]

Consider hiring an independent crash investigator. Not cheap though.

[sAsLEX]

The reports generated by the serious crash teams are very comprehensive. Not sure if its a disclosable document though. If the crash was investigated by one of the SCU teams then there should be a lengthy report somewhere. Perhaps you should try to find out whether or not the SCU people have actually had any involvement. Where was the crash?

Why not if this is the case? Surely lessons learnt and all that, hell the tv programme goes through allot of crashes.....

[spudchucka]

Why not if this is the case? Surely lessons learnt and all that, hell the tv programme goes through allot of crashes.....

Its not my area of knowledge so I can only speculate. The TV program in no way covers the full depth of information that is contained in those reports, perhaps there is a reason not to disclose them, but I don't know.

[Skyryder]

You might be able to get it under the Official Information Act. The problem is knowing what to ask for. My first port of call in this would be the Free Legal Aid. There will be someone who can find this out for you. Once you know what to ask for it's a simple matter of asking. Does not say you will get what you want but the next step is the Ombudsman. This office carries considerable clout and in my experiance is usually a one stop shop. The other thing that is most important is any corrospondence that you enter into send copies to your local MP and the Minister of Transport or to the Minister who is responsable for the dept. that you are writing to. It no only keeps these people informed but has the added effect of informing the dept head etc that their superiors are aware of your requests.


Skyryder

[candor]

Thanks for advice everyone. So I'm not mad - there would be a report. The question is whether it would or should be in the police file or would it be stored elsewhere?

Two other critical things are also missing from the file. Taken together they show a likely attempt to cover up some smelliness along with how Mum died.

A) the statement of the eyewitness who was first on scene (would have showed how crash happened and that Mum alive not dead at scene as Police wrongly claimed - the info I got from hospital conflicts with everything Police said in court depositions and sentencing - the question;are they sworn when testifying arises).
B) the serious crash analyses write up (perhaps shows truth they wish to conceal). Which is that the driver did not lose control of vehicle after hitting first vehicle as defense claimed, but actually steered into mums car by grossly overcorrecting after bouncing off the first vehicle he hit after crossing the centreline and being then headed to run off left of road (which crash report may show he did just as per one witness account). Then far recrossing the centreline a second time to hit mum - this version is implied by his passengers report of feeling guilty that she yelled at the doper as this "may have prompted a wrong response" ie a hard right steer?
C) the toxicology results for the killer - perhaps shows a plea bargain they want to hide. Something along the lines of "OK you go guilty and we'll just charge you with DUI prescribed opiates and other tranquillisers which will only cop you under a year inside and we'll forget about the pot and P we told three members of the victim family was in your urine a day after the crash as we now deny ever saying - cos people who kill driving on "illicits" get four year minimums the way our judges work but something can be arranged..."

It says the info withheld was withheld in order to "help upkeep the maintenance of the law".

This means two things to me could be in play here
A) hiding of unofficial plea bargaining practise and also the more damning evidence about crash event that was not used in court (since the guilty plea meant case never tried) from victims and public scrutiny
B) Cops just may have thwarted unwanted info release (info that could embarrass them) by saying that giving our family info about mums death could inflame me to seek vengeance. This could be a convenient excuse as it capitalises on a prior anxiety provoking smear campaign they did against me for unknown reasons....

Background - cops for whatever reasons (? offender an informant) aided the (drug world involved) offender who killed Mum out of prison at a recent parole hearing by implying to the Parole board he was at risk in jail.

They wrote to the parole board saying I had put a contract on the offender thru gang members - total fantasy which I'm taking legal advice over as such vicious malicious whisperings could damage my professional reputation.

As a nurse I sometimes have to attend and offer evidence at mental health commital hearings and imagine doing that before judges who think you are a contract killer type. Gee - didn't know having relatives killed signs you up for the whole bangkok hilton thing but it seems our cops can't tell difference between crims and straights these days!

When asked by the Parole board to justify their accusation against me who would not hurt a flea Police refused to document it and instead told the Judge something via a telephone call which I've been unable to find out what manner of self serving lie to shore up other lies (? motive) it was.

Its pretty clear here this is all just an intimidation and obstruction campaign to try and stop an inquest via crucial info hiding - one which cops told me long past they don't want.

There is no question the inquest would highlight some Police vulnerabilities re how this case was handled (as for one thing the killer was sentenced to traffic school over a serious prior drug crash forty days before killing Mum,when he really ought to have been disqualed).

But I don't see that or any of this other wheeling dealing re guilty pleas to save taxpayers the trial money, is any reason not to follow due process.