Susan Nicholson case - heartbreaking

[HeatedCatFurniture]

I've read bits about this before but this article sets it all out in detail.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/28/the-police-knew-another-girl-had-died-in-his-bed-robert-trigg-susan-nicholson

It's appalling. Those poor women, those poor families - and that elderly couple, spending years and £££ bashing their heads against a brick wall of indifference from the police.

And so many of the officers named in the article are women, too.

I can see how it happened. Plenty of reasons with some reflecting badly on officers and others less so.

The police responses here though have been disgusting. From flippant going to victim blaming then gleeful laughing at the 'take downs'. No wonder people mistrust the police.

I am S Yorks and don't trust my local police as far as I could throw them. I work in a law enforcement capacity for another government agency and will gladly explain and apologise when we get it wrong. Sometimes its staff, sometimes process and sometimes poor legislation. We need to own our mistakes and learn not close ranks.

Yes, Yorkshire. The two on here just seem detached from the horrible nature of what's being discussed. Lucky them that they are able to do that.

I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with you @OlennaWimple - I haven't seen anyone arguing for rounding up "the usual suspects" unless I've missed it (long thread).

I do think questions need to be asked when, were it not for the dogged determination (and healthy bank account) of Susan's parents, Trigg would have evaded justice once again.

Her parents had no police training either but they kept asking questions. And those questions got to the truth. Which is why the smug, sneering tone adopted by Rod on here is so infuriating

So are the police officers on this thread suggesting you can't arrest or even ask suspects to come in for questioning for a murder/suspicious death (or whatever you want to call it) until the police have received a post mortem? Because that is bollocks. Until the post m

They didn't even ask him to come in for questioning. Didn't even ask. They weren't interested even before the post mortem. Surely an unusual death like this should have warranted some level of curiosity (or disbelief) even without the other circumstantial evidence such as his record of violence against the victim and other women.

This page by Surrey police is quite interesting on the subject of suspicious or "untimely" deaths (and I've found a similar one from Devon & Cornwall). There does seem to be the implication that any untimely death should be treated as a potential homicide. This is in direct contrast to the lack of suspicion surrounding this poor woman's death and in particular this violent man, by the police who handled this case.

And this policy (and others of its type) also appears to have been directly ignored by the police force involved in the first murder by this man, as they didn't even call for a post mortem.

jiggly - there were a couple of posts earlier on in the thread that were veering towards it with the "the police had been called before - arrest him!" stuff. Arrest is a really serious step, and the police need to have more than circumstantial evidence to be able to exercise their powers (even if to the impartial viewer it looks bloody obvious who dunnit)

I've just remembered this article about how unnatural deaths in men and women are treated differently by coroners (we discussed it on this board a couple of months ago when it was first published). This case seems like a perfect embodiment of the arguments made in the article

I'm sorry they did ask for a post mortem but no inquest - as it was considered natural causes.

Jeez though. This man had perpetrated so much violence and harassment in his life and no-one gave a stuff.

But they didn't even ask him in for questioning. They believed him. A violent man with form for hating women.

And yy to that article Olenna. Systemic.

I don't think anyone has said "they should've just arrested him without evidence". I think many of us are saying that the police should've, you know, investigated. Rather than just take the word of a violent, convicted abusive and violent woman beater

Bloody hell, that article is chilling

Bloody chilling. And somehow, unsurprising. The more I look, the more I see.

Rod you said that you thought the enquiry was dealt with well in the early stages, but it clearly wasn't.
The death must have initially been deemed suspicious for a scene log to be commenced.
If the death was being treated as suspicious Trigg should not have remained at the scene.
The scene should have been documented and forensically examined and the pathologist should have examined the body in situ.
The pathologist should have been briefed as to what was already known / suspected by the senior officer prior to entering the scene.
I would expect a competent forensic pathologist to be able to see the problems with Trigg's explanation even from a cursory examination of the body at the scene.
And if the pathologist didn't notice, I'd expect someone (probably a CSI) to point it out.
So if you're treating the death as suspicious, you'd do intelligence checks on everyone in the house, and on the house itself. You find out pdq that there's a history of domestic violence. Then the pathologist comes along and says I think she suffocated, wouldn't you expect the investigating officer to ask if there's a chance she was murdered? Because I certainly would.
And as far as I know, until you've ruled out the possibility of murder, you keep investigating.
And this is where it all seems to have fallen apart here, because they seem to have just downed tools and gone home.
(And by the way Rod, I've investigated many, many suspicious deaths)

Granted I haven't arrested a murderer yet, but you know if the situation arises.

Quite an assumption. It's likely you wouldn't have the first clue whether you had or not, is it? But I'd drop the sneery obnoxious tone if you want to cheerlead for shit police work. You're not doing their PR one bit of good here.

So if you're treating the death as suspicious, you'd do intelligence checks on everyone in the house, and on the house itself. You find out pdq that there's a history of domestic violence. Then the pathologist comes along and says I think she suffocated, wouldn't you expect the investigating officer to ask if there's a chance she was murdered? Because I certainly would.

And as far as I know, until you've ruled out the possibility of murder, you keep investigating.

YY. It's like they decided any old fucking cock and bull story was good enough.

Oh, and forgot to mention - ABC of investigation:
Assume nothing
Believe no-one
Challenge everything

I hope this thread isn't deleted. It's an object lesson in everything that's wrong with the police force. A woman died at the hands of her violent partner. He was only brought to justice through the efforts of her elderly parents. It's a disgrace. Have some fucking respect.

Absolutely this.

It's... interesting, to say the least, that one officer was involved in the early stages of both these women's deaths. I have admittedly not been able to find a link to the story (having a google fail) but I remember reading something a few years ago about a police officer being disciplined and/or sacked and maybe even prosecuted for destroying evidence in multiple rape cases. There are some individual police officers who really, really hate women and think that men are entitled to do whatever they want to a woman who is not 'respectable'.
This also reminds me of the Rotherham grooming cases. Much less about 'cultural sensitivity' due to some of the perpetrators being BAME, much more to do with the prevailing belief that these abused kids were just lying, trouble-making, drug-using little scrubbers and it didn't really matter what happened to them.

(to be clear, the same officer involved in both investigations. No suggestion that a police officer did the killing.)

As it is, if this was a dead male in exactly the same circumstances (granted statistically very unlikely) I'd be saying the same thing.

Statistically if it is natural causes then no it would be equally likely

Now some forces may do it slightly differently but it usually goes something like this;

If you are following PACE or another set of rules it should be exactly the same.

Before questioning him regarding this (by arrest or voluntarily) we are likely to conduct telecoms enquiries to see if we can locate the IP address for where the profiles were created so we have some evidence to put to the suspect.

When I was being questioned, after I was arrested for something that didn't happen. Ie I was on one continent and was supposed to use a computer on a different continent to send an email in the UK (third continent) I suggested to the officer who had arrested me that he check the IP address, he asked me, "what's an IP address?"

They then threatened to take every computer my employer had. Remember the allegation was about me using a specific computer and I had not had access to my employer's computers because I wasn't in Europe when the e-mail was sent.

He had already taken my PC, including monitor, mouse and printer, I asked why they needed a printer and he said, "My mate says there is memory in it" By that time I didn't bother asking about the mouse.

His chief constable has continued to back him up as I was apparently a, 'credible suspect'

Oh, almost forgot, when they were returning the PC to me at a set time they 'got lost' on the way. Now if I lived in a far flung place I could understand that but if I was to give you the instructions from the police station to my home it would be:

Turn right as you come out of the station
follow the same road until you see McDonald's
At the roundabout after McDonald's take second left
take 1st leaft
take 2nd left
Knock on the door

Strangely all the CCTV in that police station were broken and not recording that day, all of them. The same police force who had splashed their new high tech monitoring / CCTV "best in the UK" all over the local paper.

Oh and before I was even interviewed I was told, "if you accept a caution you can go home now"

Rod is a fucking tit.

Rod is a typical officer. If you question anything it's because you don't understand procedure. Lazy, follows PACE when it suits and goes for the easy option.

It's amazing how many people assume that the women on mumsnet cannot possibly be magistrates, judges, lawyers, pathologists or - police officers.

(Or politicians, scientists, CEOs and journalists, for that matter).

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-05-03/met-dismisses-up-to-a-third-of-rape-allegations

www.channel4.com/news/sapphire-sex-crime-unit-guilty-of-shocking-failings

Rod is a typical officer. If you question anything it's because you don't understand procedure. Lazy, follows PACE when it suits and goes for the easy option.

Yes. Which is why systemic problems have often been referred to in discussions about how the police treat male violence against women and girls. Rod is acting like no one apart from us hysterical wimz thinks there is anything to be concerned about and it's either ignorant or disingenuous.

but I remember reading something a few years ago about a police officer being disciplined and/or sacked and maybe even prosecuted for destroying evidence in multiple rape cases.

If it's the same one, he was actually jailed. It's in the C4 link I posted.

Undercover filming