Am I reading this right? Strangling was not a sign he was a potential murderer?

[BeyondLimitsAndWhatever]

www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/15497546.Woman___s_murder____could_not_have_been_prevented______report_finds/?ref=mr&lp=2#comments-anchor

I will admit to personal interest that could be clouding this, but wtf? 😡

If a person does a shit act it does not follow that they will do a shitter act. It's a sign of serious DA and a MASSIVE sign of potential future harm but not that someone WILL kill.

Strangulation is not only a massive sign of potential to go on and kill in DA, it is the most clear indicator - the odds for murder to follow are increased by 750%, according to US figures. It is no different here because the form of abuse is intended to show power over life and death, not 'just' control and intimidate.

In this awful case the police were severely admonished for not recognising that an earlier attack by this man in which he strangled a girl was not an indication he'd go on to serious violence and potentially murder, as he did: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/14/georgia-williams-authorities-police-criticised-dealings-with-killer-jamie-reynolds

That was what I thought, summer - that DV in general while (obviously) not acceptable in the slightest could be argued as not being a warning sign, but that strangulation 100% is a red flag for future extreme violence, including murder.

So of course it could be prevented - if Jess had been supported to get out when she disclosed that and it had been treated by her support network (and then the police) as the severe offence it is, then they would not have been together at the time of her murder. That's the definition of preventable afaik, if it doesn't meet some legal threshold then what honestly would?

They'd want Gavin de Becker in to teach them a thing or two. He has no time for the "couldn't have been predicted" line and rightly so. What a fucking joke. Of course strangulation is a clear indicator that someone is violent and dangerous. I'm so sorry for that poor woman and her family and friends.

What do you think should've been done bearing in mind she asked for the info not to be passed onto police?

Nobody said it's wasn't a sign he was very dangerous. Just that it could not predict she WOULD be murdered. 2 subtle but different things.

Well, except that you're wrong because so many men who strangle their partners go on to actually kill them, that is basically is a prediction of future murder. It increases the risk of being killed by the strangler ten fold. Google would have told you that, as would reading the thread

I'm fully aware of the DASH indicators thank you but they don't predict murder. A quick google would show you that.

Personally I wouldn't agree that strangling was an indication of murdering someone.

Okay man, but if an activity that has strong correlational links with murder (and with the same victim) is not considered evidence enough, can you give me an example of what would be acceptable evidence?

Animal cruelty does too but you wouldn't claim everyone who mistreats a dog going to kill someone. Does it indicate an increased risk? Yes and it should feed into any risk assessment agency create. That said most DA offenders who have come into contact with government agencies were deemed 'low risk' of significant harm from the perpetrator.

Should have read DA murder victims who have come into contact....

Strangling and biting are both huge red flags. As is arson, or an interest in weaponry.

Okily dokily Manclife - we'll send all those doctors waffling on about the links between obesity and diabetes your way, so you can explain to them that since obesity doesn't 100% predict that someone's going to get type 2 diabetes, and so there's no point mentioning it.

This was a vulnerable adult, more than one person told her nurse what had happened, the nurse referred it anyway (as she should) and the matter was dropped there - against policy.

Sadly this 'missed opportunity' meant that the woman was murdered by her boyfriend.

What's upsetting is the knowledge is out there, there are procedures, and policies and guidelines that should have caught this, and they weren't followed.

Manclife
Nobody said it's wasn't a sign he was very dangerous. Just that it could not predict she WOULD be murdered. 2 subtle but different things.

Thats a disingenuous argument.
We dont need a definite 'he will kill' sign. There isnt one. We do a risk assessment. Low, medium or high risk. them make a decision on what to do next.
It should not take vulnerable people being harmed for steps to be taken to protect them from harm.

A vulnerable women who has case workers should not be dating a dangerous man. She did not give consent to being strangled. The POVA referral should not have been closed.

Strangulation alone though would result in a DASH risk of Medium. My understanding is confidentiality can only be breached when there is a High outcome on a risk assessment. However I agree the POVA shouldn't have been closed as quickly as it was.

A vulnerable women who has case workers should not be dating a dangerous man

What laws do you use to stop it? Even if this had been reported, which agency enforces it?

Strangulation alone though would result in a DASH risk of Medium
Not on police DASH forms it wouldn't.
As an aside, I hate this idea that DASH forms are some sort of safety net. In my opinion they're there to protect an organisation from criticism, very rarely do they protect an individual.

Absolutely Rod - safeguarding by a tick box. It can happens too often with children's safeguarding and is why non social-care professionals get so stressed when they can't 'trigger 'a threshold even though their knowledge / experience and listening to a child tells them that the child is at risk.
It can be a real barrier - as it seems to have been in this case. Of course, in addition to protecting organisations as you suggest, cuts and limited resources are also pertinent reasons for these tick boxes and high thresholds.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how you deal with the right to confidentiality for a vulnerable adult. I'd like to think that their 'right to personal safety and not being killed' would' take precedence over confidentiality as it does with children but I know that's not the case. And I understand why. Sadly I suspect it will always result in some people slipping through the net.

I think all professional agencies just need to be really honest with themselves and the public. Children will be killed by their parents. Men will kill their current/ex partner. Barring putting a police officer in every single home, on a 24/7 shift pattern there is no way to mitigate that. A risk assessment form changes nothing.

There's too much "lessons will be learned" (We'll add another form to already over worked staff) and not enough tackling the root of the problem.

@Rodhullstvaerial yes on police DASH forms.

Sorry manclife, what do you mean?

You said on police forms it would be high risk. I'm saying it wouldn't it would be high risk for physical abuse but not overall high.

Ah crossed wires.

No that strangulation risk question wouldn't bump it to medium or even high. It's taken overall.