When a questionable child death occurs, police and official news media have the only evidence available, in terms of photos, that could expose a potential problem. But what if they refuse to disclose that photographic evidence?

Why does a 5-year-old child die in a car’s frontal impact with a tree where photos suggest this was a moderate severity impact? Yet nothing has been said, neither by officials nor official news media about this discrepancy. Nor can photos of the evidence be made available to the public by an independent agency.

It has been reported that just after 2100 hours on Saturday, November 13, 2021 a 31-year-old female driver lost control of her car and struck a tree. Photos at the collision scene show the right side of the white car positioned near a tree. Because these photos are taken by professional journalists operating with official news agencies the photos cannot be reproduced by an independent agency to properly inform the public. While it is known that news media and police often post photos that do not show the important areas of damage to a vehicle, what is visible does not suggest that the impact should have resulted in fatal injuries.

The photos show that the right wheelbase of the car is essentially unchanged. The rearward displacement of a front wheel in a frontal impact is often an indicator of the extent of frontal crush. When there is no rearward displacement of a wheel it means that the frontal crush has not be sufficient to cause that displacement.

The crumpling of the front hood of a vehicle is also an indicator of the collision severity. In the present case the hood shows moderate buckling on the right edge and slightly greater buckling on the left (driver’s) side. Thus there is possibly more crush on the left (driver’s) side which has not been shown in the photos. Yet there does not appear to be any rearward displacement of the base of the left A-pillar. A-pillar rearward displacement is another indicator of frontal impact severity.

Thus, even through the photo documentation is incomplete, and unexplainably fails to show crucially relevant portions of the front end, there is no indication that this collision should have resulted in fatal injuries to any occupant in the vehicle.

What is particularly disturbing is that, along with the child’s injuries, the female driver’s injuries are also questionable. A witness reported watching emergency personnel removing the female driver from the vehicle. The witness observed that the driver was motionless, had facial injuries and the emergency personnel were applying cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Even if  there were complications in the collision which led to the fatal injuries of one occupant, there is no explanation why a second occupant should sustain life-threatening injuries in such a frontal impact. Even if the occupants were unrestrained and not protected by air bags their chances of sustaining life-threatening injuries in this type of impact should have been rare.

These are the types of incidents whose results go unnoticed by the general public. Readers of official news items from police and journalists do not have the experience and training to understand when a reported event is not consistent with expectations. This problem is increased when police and news media fail to disclose sufficient photographic documentation that may reveal problems in the information being reported.