Dennis Nilsen’s dog

[JeffreyJefferson]

Three days after Nilsen went to prison his dog was put to sleep and i’m just wondering does anyone know why this would happen? I don’t understand why she wasn’t just rehomed since she didn’t do anything wrong. Doesn’t seem fair to me

I have googled but it’s not giving me any answers

They were probably worried it had been eating people.

They didn't do so much rehoming then, and more dogs were killed as a matter of course.

That is sad. I noticed in the show that he tells the police they shouldn’t have kept her in a cell for 2 days as it’s distressing her and she’s old. Maybe back then animal rights weren’t so prominent, or maybe she wouldn’t settle with anyone other than Nilsen (she’s unlikely to have been well socialised) or maybe they figured nobody would want her.

It seems very unfair on her, but there are far worse things for unwanted dogs than to be humanely put to sleep (I say this as a huge dog lover).

couple of things- different time- this happened much more in the 80s and tbh the police probably weren't concerned about the dog with everything else that was going on

or maybe they figured nobody would want her
I imagine it was the opposite. She would have been front page of The Sun with her new ‘owner’, taking on ‘the dog that has eaten human flesh’ - ‘it’s all a bit unsettling but she seems content with a tin of Pedigree Chum now’ blah blah.
I was going to say, that’s what the tabloids were like back then. But that’s what they’re like now tbh.

'Went to prison' - does this mean on remand or when convicted/sentenced?

If the latter, where was the dog living until that point?

I expect an ownerless dog would end up taking its chances in a police pound (which used to operate on a 'keep for a fortnight to give owner a chance to come forward, then euthanise" basis)

Poor Bleep. I'd of had her.

Had I not been about 1 at the time..

But yeah, different times, I distinctly remember as a child in the 80's and early 90's people just letting there dogs out for the day and stray dogs being much more of a thing than they are now. We took in a lovely Labrador that spent it's days wandering around getting scraps from various shops. I suspect as she was old and rescues weren't as prevalent that putting her to sleep was seen as the kindest thing.

I'm an animal lover and I understand it's not the dogs fault, but I must admit that I don't think I could take the dog of a serial killer on, just thinking about it gives me the creeps. Imagine the kind of people that would be attracted to it, wouldn't be doing it for the right reasons. So it was probably for the best.

I'm an animal lover and I understand it's not the dogs fault, but I must admit that I don't think I could take the dog of a serial killer on, just thinking about it gives me the creeps.

What a bizarre attitude. It wasn't the dog that killed people.

More homeless dogs were put to sleep back then unfortunately. I doubt it had anything to do with who his owner was.

@gingerwhinger0

It is highly unlikely that they would tell.you whose dog it was. Besides, why would it bother you? The dog didn't do anything wrong.

I'm aware it isn't the dogs fault , I did say that in my post. But I am being honest in saying that I would struggle to live with a dog knowing its history with a serial killer.
If they didn't tell you then all good, but then there is nothing to distinguish the dog from the thousands of other dogs looking for homes - so people saying they would take it on is a bit pointless.
The dogs USP is that its DN's dog, which IMO can only attract the wrong crowd. I'm thinking people that would exploit it for financial gain, or the kind of people that write love letters to serial killers.
I haven't watched the TV drama, so haven't been drawn in emotionally to the poor dog, maybe I would feel differently if I had, but on paper its a NO from me.

@gingerwhinger0, do watch it. It’s superb. Rehoming animals wasn’t a thing in the 80s. We shouldn’t judge the past by today’s standards.

The truth is that dog as much as nilsen apparently loved it would have a similar level of trauma as an animal who lived its whole life in other different violent household like domestic violence etc, add to that its age I thunk it would have had a very hard time being re homed, but as others have said it probably wasn't even a though at the time.

That poor dog stayed in a tiny flat with an alcoholic who was even when he wasn't killing someone was well known to be physically violent and loudly shout at the young men he brought back to the point that he had a reputation amongst the local sex workers and lots of them if they could would avoid taking him on as a job. Not to mention the fact that it must have been hard for an animal with as high a functioning sense of smell as a dog to live in a space that essentially surrounded it with the smell (to put it bluntly) of meat that turned to rotting meat

I'm sure they said that she had been ill. They didn't just put her to sleep.

I remember reading in Killing for Company that the dog had a severe eye infection that had gone untreated so it may have been for that reason.

He obviously didn't care that much for her!

I'm an animal lover and I understand it's not the dogs fault, but I must admit that I don't think I could take the dog of a serial killer on, just thinking about it gives me the creeps

Yeah I don't think they would have marketed her as an ex serial killer's dog, probably would have left that bit out of her bio