There is often little question why the driver of a stolen vehicle ends up striking a house. A police pursuit could be one reason and a general recklessness could be another. However this impact to a house on Churchill Ave in east London did not result from being pursued by police and the driver apparently just passed the same location prior to the impact. Or so the evidence would suggest.

If witness reports are to be believed, a stolen van reeked havoc through east London while striking several houses and causing a variety of property damage. In one instance it appears to have travelled through the same location twice, and then struck a house upon the second passing. This is one interpretation of the physical evidence that exists in East Lions Park in east London, Ontario where a stolen van struck a residence on the evening of February 27, 2024.

Physical evidence of acceleration tire marks in East Lions Park was found during our examination of the area on the morning of February 28th.

These tire marks indicate a hard acceleration during a left turn as the grass in East Lions Park was torn out as the stolen van travelled into the background.

As shown in the above photo, physical evidence shows fresh, acceleration, tire marks in the grass in East Lions Park. This could have been caused by another, unrelated vehicle. But news media reported that they were caused by the stolen van. These tire marks eventually continued onto the pedestrian path and in a northerly direction to a house on Churchill Ave that was eventually struck.

However these “first” tire marks do not proceed toward the impact of the house. They terminate as a vehicle entered Churchill Ave. In the visible area shown below these tire marks are more indicative of braking, skid marks.

Meanwhile, a “second” set of tire marks are shown below which continue on to the impact with the house. These tire marks contain diagonal striations within them which are indicative of yaw marks. Yaw occurs when a vehicle rotates about its vertical axis (as per “fish-tailing”).

This view shows two sets of tire marks leading toward the struck house. The “Second” set of tire marks are those that continue into the impact with the house. The “First” set of tire marks terminate on Churchill Ave before reaching the house.

The markings make for an interesting and confusing scenario.

By following the “second” set of tire marks backwards we were able to track them on the pedestrian path to the East Lions Community Centre building, shown in the background of the photo below. The distance that the stolen van travelled along this pedestrian path is over 100 metres.

Near the Community Centre more curved tire marks were found indicating that the stolen van, approaching from the open field of East Lions Park, headed toward the building and then veered off to the left, as shown in the photos below.

The tire marks in this view show that the stolen van had travelled from the open field of East Lions Park, entered onto the pedestrian path, and approached the Community Centre building upon which it made a fast, left turn onto the perpendicular path that led to the house impact.

The official story, as reported by CTV News and other agencies, is that the acceleration tire marks in the field and the tire marks leading to the impact of the house were from the same vehicle. But there were two sets of tire marks. So this can only occur if the stolen van drove on the pedestrian path, and past the impacted house, before returning and then striking the house. This is possible but rather strange. Why did the stolen van strike the house after the second passing? General recklessness or for some other reason?