Gobsmacked at the jogger on the news..

[KurriKurri]

Who pushed that woman over into the path of a bus.

What a complete and utter wanker - who the hell does that?

Thank goodness she was OK (physically at least- she'll probably be rather nervous about walking along the pavement now

I have to say, this case seems more and more peculiar as it progresses. Not the incident itself but everything that has happened since then.

@HelenaDove OMG what kind of snake got into your kitchen?? I think I would have a heart attack!

It turned out to be a corn snake. So did the one in Hampstead.

I think some people are getting confused between being arrested and bring charged.

You are arrested on suspicion of. If they feel they can then prove it, they hold to CPS and then charge.

Why name before they're charged? I understand naming after charged incase other people come forward who he gas committed similar crimes against but he's been released without charge yet his name and face have been plastered across the media. Disgraceful.

His employer releases his name, not the police.

It wasn't the police who named him apparently, but his company.

Which is an odd thing to do and he may well be marching into the HR office on Monday morning...

His lawyers named him when they released their statement, didn't they? So presumably he gave his permission to be named.

Oh yes, that would make more sense, I must admit I did find his company naming him very odd, his lawyers make much more sense.

The police usually say "a man in his fifties is being questioned" or some such formulation.

So. The man that was arrested/suspected, was in the USA, at the time. So it's really comforting that the police know what they are doing!!!

How does that demonstrate that they don't know what they're doing?

The police can't know a suspect has an alibi until they've asked them about it

The man that was arrested/suspected, was in the USA, at the time. So it's really comforting that the police know what they are doing!!!

Eh? are the police supposed to know where people are before being told? If that were the case they would have the attacker in custody already.

I've seen enough police shoes:

Where were you on the 8thof june between 8 and 10 am?
I was in New York in a business trip
Can you prove that?
My office can show you my schedule and I can show you my e-tickets on my phone
I'll just check that out with passport control/immigration/whatever

(some time later) ah yes mr smith, that proves you weren't in the uk at the time. Thank you for your time...

Shows not shoes (though I've seen those as well)

If the police come to your house and look to arrest you. You say to them "Guys, hate to be a pain about this but I was in the Stares- why don't you call your mates at Heathrow and they'll confirm."

But none of us were party to the initial interaction between this man and the police so maybe he refused to say anything hence the arrest. Maybe he went all 'I want my solicitor present before I say anything'.

Nope. If the police come to your house and look to arrest you. You say to them "Guys, hate to be a pain about this but I was in the Stares- why don't you call your mates at Heathrow and they'll confirm."

Well I can't speak for either the police or Mr Bellquist but I assume that, for whatever reason, he didn't say that.

The incident happened over a month ago - if someone travels a lot, they may not be able to immediately remember that they were out of the country on a particular date and once they'd worked that out, they then would need to get confirmation from somewhere, like immigration/border control.

oanyone can be arrested on suspicon of any offence - the idea of arresting is to obtain evidence through questioning - that means all evidence - evidence that the crime was either committed or NOT committed by you.
the police have to conduct a full 360 degree impartial enquiry - if this guy has an alibi then he will be released without further action as is the case here - the alibi will be checked. police do not have crystal balls. they act on information and check it!

They can easily check before arrest. Presumably loads of people have said the jogger is XYZ and about 30 potential men have been identified. The police don't arrest all 30. They check things out. Here instead they arrested him which I think ridiculous and a waste of resources. They can check his itinerary before arresting him. He will have had all the details on his phone anyway which he would have told them immediately.

They can easily check before arrest.

How do you know he told them before he was arrested? you seem to think you know better than the police what actually happened and what should have happened. Are you him?

no. the fact is you obtain evidence by questioning after arrest - its HOW you obtain evidence!

you only have to have suspicion to arrest - its how it works! otherwise no one would eve be arrested to obtain the evidence required!

The police can't do gchecking out potential alibies before they've spoken to a suspect FFS! How are they supposed to know a putative alibi in order to check it out?
They would have lawfully arrested Eric and then in the course of questioning he'd have said -" actually the X of May you say! I think was in the States that day". At which point he was released pending further questioning.
I assume his name had been put forward by a number of people, and perhaps there was other evidence that suggested he was a possible suspect.

He was taken away in handcuffs. His usual run on mapmyrun back in 2013 anyway was totally different a direction - if you key his name into that running map you get his usual route apparently. They could have easily asked him all this at work with HR and his lawyer present and he could have handed it all over without any form of an arrest.

I think it's dreadful. They could easily have just made an enquiry as they do day in day out with potential suspects and witnesses. They definitely do not go around arresting everyone before checking out if they were where they think they were.