Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

Original poster

Gobsmacked at the jogger on the news..

981 replies

KurriKurri · 08/08/2017 15:16

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

OP posts:

Thread gallery

Elendon · 13/08/2017 10:22

It's means of elimination. His name is cleared.

Some shit is still out there though. Be careful on the streets of London.

stillvicarinatutu · 13/08/2017 10:52

how do you know he was handcuffed? were you there lucy? handcuffs are discretionary. just because he was arrested doesnt mean he was carted away in cuffs! arrest is simply a tool of the job to obtain evidence by questioning under caution so it can be used in court if necessary. arrest in this case was justified and was the speediest way of obtaining the evidence required to either charge or as in this case eliminate him from the enquiry.
the police used the law properly - they had suspicion that he was involved in an offence and arrested him to find out . thats how policing works!

RolfNotRudolf · 13/08/2017 12:09

Lucy do you know Eric personally?
So now not only should the police be checking with the Border Agency for any possible foreign trips before questioning a susoect, they should be looking at all forms of social media too?
And if they had looked at MapMyRun what would a run in 2013 prove about his whereabouts on a particular day in 2017?
And walking into his workplace and wanting a meeting with HR present?
Seriously, would you apply your preferred method of policing to all crims or just the apparently respectable, white middle-class ones?

Lucysky2017 · 13/08/2017 12:14

I am not the only person in England surprised he was arrested before these basic facts which a simple call to his secretary would have solved.

stillvicarinatutu · 13/08/2017 12:36

lucy. do you know anything about the law and how to apply it?

Loopytiles · 13/08/2017 12:39

I really hope they find the right man. Horrible crime.

RolfNotRudolf · 13/08/2017 12:42

*Hello secretary, your boss has been named in connection with the Putney jogger incident. Can you help us out here?"
"It's fine, I just checked his diary and he was in the states that day. And anyway, a quick look at MapMyRun shows that back in 2013 his regular run didn't take him anywhere near Putney Bridge."
"In that case, we'll trouble you and Mr Eric no further - you have established his innocence for us"

Elendon · 13/08/2017 12:43

What I find unusual about the arrest and subsequent fallout is that there was no statement regarding how awful and deliberate this attack was and that they hope the suspect is found.

Is what any normal person would do.

OnionKnight · 13/08/2017 14:37

The police are not mind readers, they check a suspects location after their arrest, it's how it has always happened.

Beadieeye · 13/08/2017 15:53

Lucy check out PACE 1984. The police acted in accordance with all the codes.
What happened was standard procedure.

Happytobefree17 · 13/08/2017 16:21

Elendon
Good point

JanesMom · 13/08/2017 16:30

Sorry to call out the armchair lawyers here but the police require reasonable grounds to arrest someone. They cannot go around to random people's houses and arrest them to "eliminate them" from their enquiries.

Here, we have no idea what the police knew so cannot comment definitively. However, it looks far from good if the suspect could be eliminated so easily - effectively there are no clear grounds that would justify detention. I would bet that the individual in question will shortly be filing for wrongful arrest...

orlantina · 13/08/2017 16:40

What happened was standard procedure

What evidence did they have?

Surely you need some kind of evidence or suspicion to arrest someone?

MeanAger · 13/08/2017 16:45

His usual run on mapmyrun back in 2013 anyway was totally different a direction

What planet are you on?

RolfNotRudolf · 13/08/2017 16:50

Even if the police were heavy-handed in arresting him rather than just questioning him the suggestions up-thread that they should have been finding an alibi in advance for him - whether via his employer, the Border Agency, or even obscure social media, are ridiculous.
And in this situation an arrest could have been entirely lawful.

RolfNotRudolf · 13/08/2017 16:51

Presumably they had enough evidence, or reasonable suspicion to arrest him. It requires a lower bar than actually charging him.

orlantina · 13/08/2017 16:54

Don't the police usually question suspects before arresting them?

Granted that's based on The Bill and Inspector Morse....but a few questions before formally arresting someone.

WomanWithAltitude · 13/08/2017 16:57

I am not the only person in England surprised he was arrested before these basic facts which a simple call to his secretary would have solved.

Wtf? Why would they call his secretary? The normal process when police have good reason to suspect someone has committed a crime is to arrest the person and interview them under caution (so any evidence obtained can be used in court). Which is what they did.

It is definitely not normal process for the police to speak to the secretary of a suspect rather than interviewing them directly. It's also not normal for them to preemptively check all possible alibis before even speaking to the suspect.

Why should he get special treatment? What makes him special?

RolfNotRudolf · 13/08/2017 16:59

Perhaps they did, and perhaps he didn't cooperate. And maybe he wasn't immediately ready with his alibi because he hadn't yet clicked that he was in the US the date of the assault. And maybe there were a number of factors that gave the police reason to believe an arrest was appropriate.

WomanWithAltitude · 13/08/2017 17:00

They don't have to question first if they already have enough evidence to make an arrest. And in this case, it appears they did. Arrest and charging are not the same. He was suspected of a crime (with evidence), therefore he was arrested on suspicion of having committed it. Once his alibi was established he was eliminated from enquiries.

I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this.

DeleteOrDecay · 13/08/2017 17:03

Why should he get special treatment? What makes him special?

Presumably because he will have had his 'life ruined' according to some.

MeanAger · 13/08/2017 17:06

Don't the police usually question suspects before arresting them?

Not everyone is co-operative. We don't know what he did or didn't say before he was arrested.

WomanWithAltitude · 13/08/2017 17:08

And why on earth would they try to guess his whereabouts on a given day based on Strava / Mapmyrun info from 2013?!

MeanAger · 13/08/2017 17:09

People really seem to think the police have some kind of telepathic powers that they should use to just know stuff before having to actually speak to anyone.

Mulledwine1 · 13/08/2017 17:51

My issue wasn't with the police arresting him, although I would have thought that it would have been quite easy to confirm his whereabouts within a few minutes of doing so.

My issue was with the police releasing his name before charging him, never mind any court of law finding him guilty.

In the age of newspapers only, it would have been quickly forgotten. But his name will be forever linked with this incident if anyone googles him on social media. I am implacably opposed to people being named before they are found guilty, for precisely these sorts of reasons.

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40