Des.. ITV David Tennant Drama...

[Elderflower14]

Who else is watching?? Hope its not too gory!!

The Muswell Hill flat that Nilsen lived in was sold recently in 2016 for £493k. So clearly some people weren’t put off by its history.

"Or Casanova. He's completely different in that!"

I loved Casanova! DT was amazing in it.

He's a fantastic actor, I thought his portrayal of DN was excellent, and after watching the documentary, even more so.

It was compelling - they said some scenes had been added for dramatic effect - I wonder what they added.

It was all about control for Nilson wasn't it ? Those poor men / boys.

Control and sex - he fantasised about necrophilia before he started killing.

Was Nilsen cross examined during the trial? I would liked to have seen that if so. Thought it was a fantastic dramatisation although sometimes David Tennant looked disconcertingly like Charles Hawtrey .

Didn't mind the excessive smoking - it was only jarring because we're so not used to seeing people lighting up left, right and centre these days. And I'm sure the amount of stress they were under with that case contributed hugely to the chain smoking on the police side.

The Cranley Gardens flat was on rightmove a few years ago. Someone started a thread on here linking to it.

@Hearwego

He was proven to be responsible for his actions but seriously, how’s could DN have been sane? Who could kill people , bury them under their floorboards and then get them out to sleep with? Scary to even think that people like Dennis Nilsen even existed!

I found the sane/insane question interesting.

When they tripped the psychiatrist up by saying he'd put Nilsen on suicide watch, therefore he couldn't be sane, I wondered why the psychiatrist didn't argue that. Surely many otherwise sane people might feel suddenly suicidal in the confines of prison? I'd have argued that Nilsen's state of mind when committing the murders wasn't necessarily his state of mind when he was on remand.

I don't know how a sane person could live with bodies decomposing under the floorboards. Killing them and then a rapid disposal, maybe, but how could you stand the smell, maggots etc? & then dissecting them when they were in an advanced state of decomposition?

It raised an interesting question about where you draw the line between sane and insane. Arguably no one who murders people is 'sane'. The arguments seemed to be around premeditation.

I thought it was a good dramatisation, overall - I read the Brian Masters book years ago.

Minor quibble that one of the victims' parents' kitchens had Farrow & Ball style blue-painted cabinets which I think would've been very unusual in a suburban house in 1982 - more likely to have been pine or melamine.

Was Nilsen cross examined during the trial? I would liked to have seen that if so

I don't think he gave evidence

I don't think he'd have done himself any favours at all by giving evidence. (Not that it would ultimately have made a difference as he was sentenced to the maximum possible terms.)

He was hoping to have the crime reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility but (in the surviving interview footage) he comes across as cold, calculating and very very arrogant.

I’m sure Nilsen would have been seen by many psychiatrists in prison, possibly during his entire sentence. I’m of the conclusion that Nilsen was assessed as being sane- otherwise he would have gone into a mental institution.
It’s also not unusual for people to be on suicide watch in prison, particularly new people.
Peter Sutcliffe was originally sent to prison and then Broadmoor, a place for the criminally insane.
Interestingly, Sutcliffe was transferred back to prison fairly recently. Presumably he was seen as more sane?!

Do you think he really couldn't remember the names or was he just pretending he had forgotten.

I feel like if he could remember but was holding them back that he might have "remembered" something every so often and drip fed stuff to keep playing a game and keep himself interesting?

Or was he holding back to cause pain to the families?

Or had he genuinely not remembered their names?

@Pobblebonk

Was Nilsen cross examined during the trial? I would liked to have seen that if so

I don't think he gave evidence

Generally, if you take the stand (as they say) you can be cross examined. Not sure if that affected his legal strategy.

There was an interesting case back in the 50s - Dr. Bodkin Adams - who famously refused to give evidence and therefore could not be questioned. He got off a murder (and thus hanging) charge. Moreover he was very litigious, and lived until the 80s. It was only when he died that people could speculate about his guilt.

I don't think it would be that unusual RightOnTheEdge
I think most people just introduce themselves by their first name don't they?
And at that time it wouldn't be unusual not to carry ID around, people just used to carry cash etc.

Do you think he really couldn't remember the names or was he just pretending he had forgotten.

I was reminded of Ian Brady refusing to confess or co-operate with the investigation into the murders of Keith Bennett and Pauline Reade. Hindley had confessed to the killings but Brady said he would only confess if he were given the means to commit suicide afterwards.

It's all about mind games for serial killers - what they want is control and attention on their terms. I think Nilsen knew but enjoyed withholding the names while the police were dancing attendance on him.

I'm going to watch this today. Don't know that I'll be able to stand all the smoking!

@Judashascomeintosomemoney

Will watch the rest on catch up. Neil Tennant has him down to a tee Yes, would have been quite a different vibe if, instead of confessing, NT had played DN sitting in the dock muttering What’ve I, what’ve I, what’ve I done to deserve this......

😂😂😂

I haven't watched it yet, but this comment alone has made my day.

Hearing the very name of Winnie Johnson makes me so sad. To die, never having been able to bring your baby home and say goodbye... that must have been the nearest thing to hell on this earth for her.

To think that he was touching bodies in that advanced state, sleeping with them and doing god knows what, I cannot see how he can be judged sane on that basis alone.

I got the impression from the Brian Masters book that he only interacted with the bodies while they were (in his words) 'fresh'. When they began to show signs of decomposition they (in his words) 'went straight under the floorboards'. They then remained there until he had the chance, and could nerve himself (by getting blind drunk) to destroy them. He claimed to have vomited often during the process of destroying the decomposed bodies.

Of course, what Nilsen told Brian Masters may not be the truth.

Brady is a good argument as to why in certain instances someone should be tortured to tell the truth

I never get this argument. I have such a low pain tolerance, and fear of torture, that I would say anything

Handsoffisback By his account, only while they were still 'fresh'.