Putney Pusher suspect found dead, according to reports

[Fartughtyred]

Goodness me, wasn't expecting that.

Interesting that his family seem to be going for the police rather than the Daily Mail for publishing information that made it easy to identify him. They'll have known precisely what they were doing there, it was very specific. It could of course have been the police who leaked it to them, but not guaranteed to be.

Leumi is an Israeli bank and Jerusalem is 2 hours ahead of London so he might well be in early - you would also expect quite a number of bankers to start early if they cover the far east so he wouldn't be alone in being an early bird.

*you're.

You have to use spell checker for ‘you’re’? I know that one off by heart. You are = you’re.

piss off shouldn't be hyphenated

True. I passed Y2 English, so I know that one off by heart too.

@Redheadedstepchild · Today 15:17

Well, the evidence the family has presented that proves that he was not guilty is that the victim said that the man had brown eyes, Nicholas Brandram had blue eyes.

How on earth could they see the eye colour of the man who pushed the woman? You can't see his eyes in the video footage.

Wonder if the family will release those emails? I would if I had them.

Honestly I think from
the grainy CCTv it does look like him. Its certainly not a complete mismatch is it?! He did already have a conviction against a female cyclist, was a wealthy entitled banker -
all of it does
point to him. And I find it strange that an ex would make something like this up if it wasnt true. I mean they could be, but it seems unlikely.

@PrettyLittleRose The victim said, at one point that whoever attacked her had brown eyes. Allegedly. It's all getting very murky and hard to work out.

Did she? I don't ever recall hearing that she's said this. I agree with @user1492538376 on that video it does look like him. I think he took his own life because he knew his life was going to be upended, and he would never recover from it.

Actually many investment banks love that diversity of training and disciplines. But they want top quality individuals - if that is you, go for it!

Good to see you on this thread.

I thought there was a base offence in this case: common assault which I understand in England can include hostile gesticulation etc and doesn't require any physical contact. I had understood that the manslaughter conviction was overturned because the acts constituting the base offence just weren't serious enough, rather than because there technically wasn't an offence.

I hope I'm wrong. The reasoning (as I understand it) seems to ignore that someone did die as a result of Grey's actions.

I'm not saying it wasn't him, but this is flimsy evidence to convict him on.

The main problem is that the CCTV images might have looked like him, but might have looked like 5% of the male population too - which is a lot, in London. They really weren't very good.

He doesn't sounds pleasant, you could well believe that he might be a nasty piece of work but the information that's publically known just isn't enough to convict him on.

What does seem strange, now I think, is that while the Met has a very messy reputation, this man was someone who'd been in active combat zones and therefore had previously handled large amount of pressure. It seems odd that the pressure would be enough to make him commit suicide. It could be that this was a different sort of pressure, that his job was at risk and his second marriage had failed and it was all too much, but this is sheer guesswork.

Against that you have the claims that the eye colour and tattooes were wrong etc.

We just don't know.

I'm pretty sure I was right originally. It wasn't the seriousness.

The prosecution didn’t establish the intent required for assault, they didn’t establish the unlawful force element either. The whole court, defence, judge, prosecution just assumed push = assault and moved on taking the base offence for granted and nobody spotted it.

this man was someone who'd been in active combat zones and therefore had previously handled large amount of pressure. It seems odd that the pressure would be enough to make him commit suicide. It could be that this was a different sort of pressure, that his job was at risk and his second marriage had failed and it was all too much, but this is sheer guesswork.

If the pressure leads to insomnia then people start making every strange decisions, including suicide.

Thank you!
I do hope his handmaiden MintyBadger shuffles off with him🤣

Yes totally the norm for client facing staff or traders. So IF he was there at 7:30, then he cant have been on Putney Bridge at 7:40. However emails can be sent with delays. So if the evidence is electronic, not physical/CCTV, then i would be more wary.

How strange. In the CCTV I saw of this incident, the aggressor does appear to have a forearm tattoo - his right forearm is an unusual colour.

Police will have been able to enhance the cctv images to a degree even if the stills appear poor quality,

Muscle wastage in the calf is an interesting claim but very hard to verify visually - if he is running regularly, it’s not going to be a withered limb, maybe a bit of volume reduction …

Just as a matter of interest, when in the commission of a crime, people are sometimes seen to have "dark" eyes when that's not their normal colour.

The emotional response, whether extreme anger or a predatory arousal, leads to physiological changes, such as an adrenaline spike. The pupils can become so dilated that, together with sometimes an intense stare, can cause a witness to say that the attacker had brown or black eyes.

The prosecution argued for common assault in the appeal. To prove common assault, they would have to show that Grey's conduct caused Mrs Ward (the cyclist) to think she was going to use unlawful force and that the threat of force was intentional or reckless

To prove recklessness, the prosecution would have to show that Grey was aware of the risk that Mrs Ward would think she was going to use unlawful force, that she nevertheless decided to take that risk and that, in the circumstances, it was an unreasonable risk for her to take.

The Court of Appeal found that, taken at its highest, the prosecution case was that Mrs Ward may perhaps have feared a blow. That is not enough for a conviction for common assault. The prosecution would need to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Grey's actions actually did cause Mrs Ward to fear a blow. "May perhaps" is nowhere near good enough.

Even in the unlikely event that the prosecution could overcome that hurdle, they would then have had to look at Grey's state of mind. Given her disabilities and cognitive issues, it is unlikely they would have been able to convince a jury that any perceived threat of force was intentional or reckless.

For a conviction for unlawful offence manslaughter, the seriousness of the offence that caused the victim to die is irrelevant - any intentional unlawful act that exposes others to a risk of harm is enough. Common assault, if proven, would have been enough to sustain the conviction. The issue was that there simply was not enough evidence to convict Grey of common assault or any other offence, and therefore she could not be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

So no, it is not that the acts were not serious enough. And the Court of Appeal acknowledged that Mrs Ward died as a result of Grey's actions. They specifically said that her death was a tragedy and the circumstances were horrific, and they acknowledged that Grey's actions contributed to her death even though they did not constitute a criminal offence.