24 hours in police custody...

[randomuntrainedcuntowner]

Do you think he did it?

I am very suspicious of a man who would take on an alcoholic and the ration her alcohol. It's very controlling. And he is so odd.

I wondered if she was hiding from the female neighbour that saw her?

Also mixing alchohol and medication must have been horrendous.

Maybe she was withdrawing at times/hallucinating/hearing voices/feeling things crawling on her skin and was desperate for more alchohol. Its so incredibly sad.

Great post futuristic. I agree that the police don't come over at all well in this series.

It was a fascinating episode though. I think in times before dna/fingerprints/cctv he would have been convicted, as there were bloody fingerprints on the front door.

Tbh, if Dean Robinson chooses to sue the police they deserve to lose. Reminded me a lot of Christopher Jeffries, who also had to leave the area.

The DJ Avicci recently ended his life in the same manner as Ms Fade.

Creepy bit at the end though ‘I just looked after my little girl’. Shudder.

@futuristic1 - I watched this episode with exactly the same perspective as you did, and was surprised when I read many of the comments on this thread.

I also strongly agree that pre Dna and other advances of science, he would absolutely have been charged and convicted - possibly executed. It's not illegal to be very 'odd' but you'll certainly be treated as though it is. Look at this guy, hounded out of his home, and people like Christopher Jeffries.

I've read many threads on MN and elsewhere by partners of addicts and those with serious MH issues. Many trying desperately to manage their partner's intake, often with issues of their own which leave them not knowing what the hell to do for the best. How many times are people advised to 'log' contact with professionals or dates/times of incidents within their relationships? But when this guy does that (being an organised spreadsheet fan anyway) it is seen as deeply bizarre and suspicious!

I see some of your points futuristic but I think we’re watching it with hindsight, which the police don’t have during the investigation.

They have a woman dead in a field with injuries usually associated with murder and not suicide.

They have a partner who is distinctly odd and gives an inconsistent account of the past few days. (And remember ?9 times out of 10 in these scenarios it is the partner who has murdered the victim, usually a woman).

Initially there were no other witnesses or suspects so of course they arrest him, an arrest is to facilitate investigation of the crime. It doesn’t automatically mean he will be charged. I’m not sure why he was cuffed but I imagine it’s standard procedure in violent crimes (I’m not a police officer)

I didn’t watch it with the notion that they were baying for his blood and conversely it soon became apparent the investigating officers realised she was a deeply unwell and troubled woman. Their relationship wasn’t as black and white as it originally appeared and it seemed to me they soon realised he had been a probable victim too on some occasions.

Her family seemed to be the ones who were sure he had killed her and suggesting he had drugged her before. The police seemed more cautious to take that as read and investigated accordingly, they had to wait for toxicology remember.

It was all rather sad and whilst he obviously had delusions of grandeur, presenting himself as a doctor for example, I can’t underestimate the effects of living with someone who is an addict. As a PP said, he aged terribly over the short time he was under investigation. But I can’t see the police acted inappropriately.

As you said though, we all view things in different ways. That’s what makes television so interesting!

I was very perturbed at the way the suspect was treated both by the Police and Channel 4. It bothered me that the programme makers and the police pointed the finger first before establishing he didn’t murder anyone. The damage was done by this time and he had to leave his home. He was clearly on the autistic spectrum and can’t think why no Police Officer even mentioned this. The man had no legal representation or appropriate adult assigned to him. Mental health issues were plainly evident in case. I think he was treated appallingly and I lost a lot of respect for the Police watching this documentary.

FabulouslyGlamorousFerret I agree, I found it very intrusive for details of her medical records being read out as part and parcel of a show for our "entertainment."

I also found it very disrespectful to show images of her corpse (albeit the images were slightly blurred). If I was a member of her family or a friend I would have been distraught.

The man had no legal representation or appropriate adult assigned to him. Mental health issues were plainly evident in case.

He may have declined legal representation as in his eyes he had nothing to defend?

He was asked at booking in if he had any MH issues and twice said no. He was assessed by a ?mental health nurse who didn't insist on further assessment by a doctor so I don't think you can blame the police entirely.

It was certainly a fascinating episode.

I thought the bit at the end was the oddest. When he was talking about his dog and when he referred to Sharon as a little girl.

He was asked at booking in if he had any MH issues and twice said no. He was assessed by a ?mental health nurse who didn't insist on further assessment by a doctor so I don't think you can blame the police entirely.

Putting it very crudely, we generally don't ask mad people if they are mad and then accept their word for it. Thee's a reason for that, obviously.

I don't think the mental health worker gave any sense of understanding him any better than the police or you and I did - it was obvious she wanted to 'please' the police.

There is no obligation on the police to formally arrest and certainly no obligation to handcuff anyone they want to question. No obligation at all.

Everything they do is a choice. They don't have to do anything. They choose to do it.

At every decision point ask yourself - why has that decision been made? Look at it like a flowchart - at every divergence, ask why?

There was no evidence that he had ever murdered anyone when the accused was arrested and cuffed.

He'd already spoken to police because they repeatedly taked about his spreadsheet. They'd clearly already been to his house already, possibly several times.

He was released on bail after 36 hours - why?

Because they had no evidence - that's why?

That's the same 'no evidence' they had before they arrested him!

There's nothing confusing or unclear about that.

They wanted him to incriminate himself.
The handcuffs are for the TV/media and the baying crowd outside the front door, and psychological pressure on the accused.

It's a well-known tactic.

In the event of lack of evidence, squeeze the only suspect you've got and see if they break.

The poice were repeatedly shown saying - he had his spreadsheet open when we arrived to arrest him. He sent texts 10 mins before we arrived.

The only basis for having any query on those events would be if he knew you were coming - and he didn't, did he? So it's just a mud-slinging exercise for the cameras - more TV PR when they know they already look like ham-fisted idiots. Trying to make their tactics look sensible after the event.

Someone knew enough to know that man needed a psychological assessment but not one of them had the brains/guts to say, maybe thisis just normal for him. After all, apparently we're experienced coppers, and we do live in the same world as everybody else, but apparently we've not heard of autism.

But have a listen to our cute, laughing kiddies on my telephone - see how normal we are... we wouldn't be bad.

When can I have my phone and computer back please?

Yaddah, yaddah, don't know but I'll give you some bullshit answer because I don't know and I don't care and yep, I even behave like this when I know I'm being filmed for TV.

Earmark that station for retraining Moneypenny.

I thought it was going to be suicide based on what the eye witness had said.

They whole thing was very odd.

I agree that I don't think the police handled the case very well, far too much assumptions and judgement, quite unprofessional.

I was surprised he was arrested on a murder charge with little evidence against him. Mud sticks, which is probably why he's moved from the area, poor guy.

The only good thing to take from this episode is than an innocent person wasn't charged or convicted of such an horrific crime.

However, they have had their life ruined and have had to move and probably felt they had to participate in the TV programme in order to further 'clear' their name/reputation.

This man was cleared by the evidence.

It's very easy to see how, under the weight of police interrogation, casual allegations, circumstantial pressure, a more vulnerable person may well have caved in and admitted to a crime they didn't commit.

He was odd but he knew he didn't do it and no matter how much wheedling and digging the police did, he wasn't going to admit it. He was luckier than he knows and he was stronger and more resilient than many.
When he watches it back he'll have a better sense of how much they were out to get him.

He was a gnat's crotchet away from losing his liberty.

He was freed on the basis of the forensic analysis of the evidence. All of which highlighted the police assumptions/accusations as false.

If he'd admitted murder under duress, would the police have bothered to carry on with that forensic analysis with proper dilligence or just accepted his confession? It would certainly have gone to court on the basis of a confession.

Would evidence outweigh a confession? At what point would a professional representative have been appointed for him?
I don't believe there's any obligation on anyone to accept legal representation.

I wouldn't like to put my life in their hands.

He was clearly on the autistic spectrum and can’t think why no Police Officer even mentioned this. Why would the police mention it? that is what people here are assuming unless I missed something? Last time I checked the police were not psychologists capable of diagnosing their suspects with conditions.

It was a very upsetting episode it was clear from the beginning that they were both in a co-dependent relationship. She was an alcoholic and potential drug user with a lot of mental health problems, he was a heavy alcohol user bordering very much on functioning alcoholic while at the same time trying (albeit badly) to help his partner with her addiction. Their lives were utterly chaotic neither capable of properly functioning at all really. He was weird but a lot of the traits that he displayed, super organised, slightly controlling, spreadsheets etc from his friends account seem to be part of his personality for years. He had suffered a marriage break down and a job loss so was obviously in a very vulnerable state as well. From the beginning I felt he didn't do it and was just as vulnerable as the victim. Their relationship was toxic and both played a part in that.

The police were appalling. Those two female detectives trying to hold back sniggers when they were interviewing him was dreadful I hope they look back on this and shudder at their extremely unprofessional behaviour

I don't think the mental health worker gave any sense of understanding him any better than the police or you and I did - it was obvious she wanted to 'please' the police

She was a disgrace to her profession and as a human being. I sincerely hope her role in that shambles is looked into by someone.

She made a horrible remark when talking to the police and they sat there all chummy chummy with the police knowing we’ve got her onside.

Putting it very crudely, we generally don't ask mad people if they are mad and then accept their word for it. Thee's a reason for that, obviously.

Well of course not, but if he'd said "I have autism" or "I'm on mirtazipine" or "I see a CPN" then no doubt they would have handled it very differently. As it was they had him seen by a HCP so had done their duty in that respect.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying police are infallible and can head in the wrong direction in an investigation but it's very easy for us to sit and watch a highly edited TV programme and proclaim they fucked up or didn't do something. I have no doubt there was HOURS more evidence gathering and interviewing we didn't see.

And one would sincerely hope that forensic evidence would take equal or higher priority than circumstantial evidence - we're not in the 19th century or in the USA.

I think many of us are inferring too much from what we were presented with. What we do know is that Mr Robinson wasn’t charged and it was found that Ms Fade committed suicide.

I think I might agree fluffi

You can see he has a solicitor in each interview, in addition to the extension.

The Police are not mental health workers however as they called for an assessment must have felt one was required and were not happy to proceed without one, with regards to the MH assessor coming in, the decision is her responsibility, if she feels she is not qualified she needs to ask for a further assessment and/or an appropriate adult to sit in on the interview.

He was handcuffed for his and the officers safety, he is an unknown risk and had he tried anything whilst the officer was driving, his, theirs and members of the public are potentially at risk.

Other than that the officers I agree at times didn’t come across well and suffered from a bad case of a-priori investigative bias.

Taking into account the gravity of the injuries, previous call outs to the address with reports of violence, and lying about his previous occupation. A full account needs to be gained and the arrest from what I can see can be justified.

The body had already been discovered so they should have ideally taken a more measured approach although they appear to treat him respectively (apart from the smirking Yoga response) in custody.

They have to weigh up the speed required to preserve potential evidence at the scene and the place the victim was previously (including to assist guilt or innocence)

They discuss the potential of suicide before the results come in.

Very limited information is shown on the TV, weeks of investigation shown over just over an hours TV entertainment, this doesn’t of course show the whole procedure and is cut by the producer not the Police, Sharon’s family or Dean.

Very sad case for all and Sharon’s family release such a powerful and insightful statement she clearly needed help as Dean did as her carer.

I felt sorry for him by the end. He undoubtedly has a very unusual personality but I think he genuinely cared for her and meant well in his actions. He seemed broken by the end. I had assumed her family, as well as him, had consented to the filming/programme. I did feel a bit uncomfortable about the ethics of making this programme, but I admit I was intrigued, and watched until the end.

I couldn't help laughing when he raised his leg to show his yoga moves and the police officer had to stifle her smirk!

I was just watching this this afternoon and I was really uncomfortable with how they'd gone down the "odd bloke = must be him that done it" line from the outset. Yep the spreadsheet thing is a bit odd in a way, but if you're trying to get sense from authorities to get help for someone, it can really bloody well help in sending across the message you're not going to be fobbed off - and I use one to track all the agencies involved with DD2 (I'm probably odder since I also photograph all appointment letters and store them alongside it as well) and if you're the sort of mind who likes to order and organise information - you're the sort of mind who works in that way (DH would make a spreadsheet about anything if you let him).

Called the way it was going to go from the start though - and I do think that at times the police's attitudes really needed looking at because they came across appallingly (the last time I've seen someone come across as badly on-screen they got pulled up massively by their employer when the show aired and given a LOT of awareness training).

Plus I loved the dog - they could have given me 60 minutes of a greyhound getting a cuddle on screen and I'd be happy generally.

You can see he has a solicitor in each interview, in addition to the extension.

I've probably watched every episode of this show since it began and I always look for evidence of a solictor present.

Usually, the producers go out of their way to indicate the presence of a solicitor (even if the solicitor doesn't wish to appear on screen) by showing legs, or a notepad or the accused looking to their legal representative for advice.

I saw none of those signs in this episode.

The accused was not an 'unknown' risk.
Police had been to his house before.

There was no need to use cuffs. They went mob-handed. They have vans if necessary.

They did not have enough evidence for a charge when they arrested him - they admitted this.

Murder suspects do not usually get bail the detective said.

Police did not have enough evidence to keep him the voiceover said.

And as the conclusion of the episode revealed, police actually had no evidence at all. None whatsoever. None. Not a smidgen.

This is what the police do. It does not however, make it right.

You can see the solicitor 🤨 and it is practice to handcuff someone under arrest for his, theirs and the public’s safety whether you like it or not, it is actually very sensible as no matter how many times officers have been to the house people are in predictable under stress. Those officers themselves may not have met him before of course but it is how it has to be done I’m afraid.

They are also cuffed when out in a van.

Mob handed, it was a search and arrest team so there will be several.

There was enough evidence to arrest, evidence to charge is different for obvious reasons.

I’ve also represented clients (I’ve worked both sides of the table) released on bail for murder. Stating ‘usual’ is not absolute.

He also said, as he was being arrested, ‘I could outrun you if I wanted to’