Putney Pusher suspect found dead, according to reports

[Fartughtyred]

Goodness me, wasn't expecting that.

I think it would be very unlikely that his dna was on the victim's clothing if he wasn't the pusher, given that he claims not to have been anywhere near the bridge on the morning in question.

Wouldn’t that be quite swift if they had it? Do his DNA and compare straight away.

Yes you would think so. That's the family's take - he was desperate for them to run the test and exonerate him, so why wasn't it run?

Surely witnesses at the time would have noticed a tattoo and a 'visibly withered' leg?

The eye colour thing doesn’t seem relevant either - apparently the pusher kept on running past so how would the victim have a clear look?

According to reports the pusher ran back across the bridge after about 15 minutes and she (and maybe other witnesses) tried to talk to him then. I'd guess that's when she would have seen his face better.

That makes sense.

I don't know too much about DNA collecting and how it works. Does anyone know would they have tested her coat, found there were say 30 individuals samples from people she'd brushed up against on the tube or whatever then isolated and kept them all?

yes but apparently he ignored her and just kept running past.

If the victim says her attacker had blue eyes and a military style tattoo then both these facts are relevant, even if they are not conclusive in and of themselves. They are part of the evidence the police would use to determine whether a person should be charged, the the CPS would use to decide whether to prosecute and that would then ultimately be evaluated in court.

Except that won't happen now and anyway most people seem to have already decided that he was guilty.

I listened to the R4 interview on the Today Show and the one thing that was missing, that I'd like to have heard, was if it was typical for the accused guy to run before work and if so would that have been near Putney Bridge?

If they can hand on heart say he wasn't a runner or he never ran in the mornings or anywhere near Putney that would be quite convincing. The fact they didn't think to say that suggests to me they think he might well have been running on Putney Bridge at that time. Which is far from conclusive but it changes the nature of the debate a lot.

Of course it might have been cut by R4 and even if he ran over Putney Bridge every morning that doesn't mean he pushed anyone. None the less, I'm curious.

I don’t know how they would know this, though. My DH’s family know that he is a runner, but have no clue what routes he takes, for how long, or even if he’s an am or a pm runner.

The attack was in between his two marriages, so I don’t even know whether he was living with anyone at the time, who could give an answer on whether or not he was an am runner.

Given the time of day it was likely she hadn't got on any sort of public transport yet. She was out in the open, probably shortly after leaving her house.

If there were a lot of multiple DNA profiles on her coat (eg if people touched it while helping her afterwards) I'm sure that would've been accounted for.

Seems like a massive clusterfuck by the police. I'd like to know more about who reported Brandram after all this time and what the evidence was.

Very disturbing to read so many posts, here and elsewhere, declaring they're "certain" he was guilty based on, frankly, fuck all.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be that day, though I'd have thought being out walking at 7.30ish having been on public transport quite common if someone started work for 8 in the area? Not sure if that applies to the victim here or not, but it would be plausible enough for someone travelling through a busy city to have multiple DNA samples on them. So just wondered do people know how it works- I don't at all.

why would he be scheduling emails to his sisters to send at a certain time, that's mad

his sisters said he wouldnt have been running on putney bridge as it is not near his work

At the time of the attack he lived in Notting Hill Gate and worked just off Oxford Street. Putney Bridge is around 4 miles on foot from Notting Hill Gate and in a totally different direction to his place of work. That is not impossible, but it would be a long run.

According to reports, he was arrested when someone close to his ex-wife contacted the police and alleged he was the Putney pusher, leading to his arrest almost 9 years after the incident. The police had previously interviewed 50 men and arrested three suspects, one of whom was not even in the country at the time.

I’m surprised at the newspapers publishing the details that meant he could be identified if it wasn’t definitely him. If they knew his identity and background they’d know he was wealthy and connected and much more able to sue than the average person. Unless they knew that they hadn’t crossed any lines legally and there’d be no case.

It's two different things. It was definitely him who was arrested and questioned. The Mail published enough details to make him directly identifiable and they will have known that's what they were doing. It's legal to do so. But they didn't say he actually was the pusher.

The way it would work is that you would compare the suspect's DNA with all the unidentified DNA samples found on the victim. If his DNA matched one of those samples, that would make it more likely he was the attacker, particularly if there was no evidence of any other contact between him and the victim. However, it would not be absolute proof of guilt - with small amounts of DNA, it would be possible that the suspect came into contact with an innocent third party, transferring his DNA to their clothes, and they then came into contact with the victim, with his DNA transferring from the third party's clothes to the victim.

Similarly, if his DNA did not match any of the samples it would not prove he was innocent as it is possible the push did not transfer enough DNA for profiling, but it would make it less likely he was guilty.

Saying that he had been arrested is factual, so he could not sue them for libel. He could possibly sue them for breaching his right to privacy, but the newspapers may be able to win on the grounds that it was in the public interest for them to publish this information.

At the time of the attack he lived in Notting Hill Gate and worked just off Oxford Street. Putney Bridge is around 4 miles on foot from Notting Hill Gate and in a totally different direction to his place of work. That is not impossible, but it would be a long run.

That in itself is something of an alibi. An 8 miler before work is quite an ask so all other things being equal you wouldn't be immediately suspicious of him, even if he really was a regular morning runner.

I really think the police should spell out the evidence against him. I have a horrible feeling it's going to be flimsy in the extreme.

I didn't know he lived in Notting Hill and worked in Oxford St. That's not just a long run to Putney Bridge but it would be an unpleasant one too - busy, polluted streets. It would be insane to choose that as a running route from Notting Hill. Hyde Park is right there.

Could also read it as "I note he was a former army officer, so could just be an arrogant twat".
And I'm married to one (former army officer, not an arrogant twat😉)!

Thanks, thought it might be something like that.

Makes me wonder if a lot of this is inconclusive. No DNA but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. He messaged his sister at the time but it could've been from a mobile device or work computer and it's too late to work it out now. The family know he ran in the mornings so they can't deny that, notwithstanding the bloke in the footage is quite heavyset for someone who does an 8 mile run before work regularly. All things that perhaps make it less likely but aren't a slam dunk. And as it would probably have come out by now if he'd been questioned in 2017, the police were starting from scratch and may have had to track down quite a few people for interviewing.

Though if I were a loved one of his and the comments about his leg aren't an exaggeration, I'd be leaking any photos I had.

This is sort of right, but not for the reasons you give.

If you report that someone has been arrested, readers will understand this to mean that there are “grounds to suspect” or (possibly “strong grounds to suspect”) that they are guilty of the alleged offence. In libel law terms this is known as a “Chase level two” meaning.

For a newspaper to succeed in a defence of truth they would have to prove that there were indeed grounds to suspect them of the offence. So they’d need evidence; they can’t just say “it’s true he was arrested” or “the arrest proves there were grounds to suspect him.” It may be that the newspapers could pull the necessary evidence together though.

However, the press would also likely be able to reply on the defence that publication of the arrest was in the public interest (s4 Defamation Act 2013).

It’s now academic as a deceased person/their estate can’t sue for libel.

On the privacy side, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy until and unless they are formally charged with an offence, as a rule.

[And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the only time I have known more about something than prh47bridge]