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.

That article is such a devastating read. Those parents are amazing.

I'm fine with criticism. It's when it's from people who have absolutely no idea whatsoever, that it massively fucking grates. Especially when those same people decide to politicise her death to desperately try and make a point which is wholly untrue.

Best get over it then, this is Feminist Chat, where concerning feminist issues are discussed. And there most certainly is a feminist issue involved in police responses to male on female violence.

Looked at the most basic history of a DV perpetrator at the time when his second girlfriend died in suspicious circumstances.

Lovely. So you PNC him and it tells you he has a caution for assault. Then What?

There is palpable disinterest in violence towards women from the police force

Ok let's pretend for one minute this is the case. Do you really think for one minute that any officer would pass up the chance to Nick someone for murder? That's once in a career stuff. You'd have a queue of officers lining up to do it.

What would WE have done differently?
Not being Police Officers?

The article makes it sound like there were many many failings at every stage.

It makes it sound like the officers, decided, had a fixed mindset, early on, that this is what we think happened, and we aren't going to move on that.
Its like a stubborn'ness - unwillingness to be moved on your ideas.

when the parents complained, was it 3 times, that the investigation hadn't gone far enough. All times it was deemed adequate. That's not confidence inspiring, is it?

But it wasn't, was it? Done properly? the parents kept finding snippets of info. from data requests etc. Time and time again.

And they thought, why didn't someone question that ..... the sofa being small.... why didn't someone 'click' or register that this just didn't add up.

Especially when we repeatedly kept asking them to.

Do you think this is all 'good practice'?
Meets guidelines?
I doubt it.

This is so poor its staggering. Many police forces have had similar.
Why not at least have the grace and dignity to admit that this was very badly handled and assure people that mindsets and procedures have changed to try and prevent re-occurrence?

That's once in a career stuff. You'd have a queue of officers lining up to do it.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Best get over it then, this is Feminist Chat, where concerning feminist issues are discussed. And there most certainly is a feminist issue involved in police responses to male on female violence

Like I said join up. Become a special. Show us where we're all going wrong

@RodHull "Again I'll ask what would you have done differently?"

As I said, I'm no expert but I would have expected:

1. That a woman who died of suffocation alone in a house with her massive thug of a boyfriend should ring alarm bells. At the very least, he should have been arrested on suspicion of foul play, particularly when there had been several reports of DV.

1. Looked into his previous convictions. It's hardly advanced police procedure that when a woman dies in this sort of situation, you have a look at the police database and check out if the aforementioned massive thug has a criminal record?

It's indefensible. And it's misogyny. The police judged her for being a drunk and a bit of a slag and that they didn't really care that she was dead. And it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the pathologist and coroner were of the same mindset.

We couldn't have known, we couldn't have done something else. If you're so good then you show us

Somehow I'd expect more of a willingness to look at what went wrong and what could be improved for future when someone nearly gets away with murder twice. Clearly that's asking too much.

Ok let's pretend for one minute this is the case. Do you really think for one minute that any officer would pass up the chance to Nick someone for murder? That's once in a career stuff. You'd have a queue of officers lining up to do it.

But Rod. The parents wrote repeatedly to the IPCC. They even reinvestigated the case. From the off there were concerns.

PC Adams, one of the two officers to first attend the scene, had been “particularly frustrated” and had asked several colleagues why Trigg had not been arrested. Two days after Nicholson’s death, DI Barrett had spoken with a senior officer about the possibility of arresting Trigg – but decided that it would not be “advantageous” to do so.

Time and again there were numerous police officers involved. All the way up. How does that correlate with them chomping at the bit to make a name for themselves?

The parents gave them numerous attempts to do so.

"Show us where we're all going wrong"
No. we don't need to change our jobs and join the police force.

You've been shown, very clearly, in this article alone, many of the things that were done wrong.

Why cant you comment on that graciously?

We just want them to do their job properly. Not gross Negligence.

But its the fobbing off for 6 years that's painful. And the insistence of the investigations being done 'satisfactorily' by 3 different investigators, is even more awful.

I mean come on. This really is so incredibly poor. Are you arguing that its not?

1. That a woman who died of suffocation alone in a house with her massive thug of a boyfriend should ring alarm bells. At the very least, he should have been arrested on suspicion of foul play, particularly when there had been several reports of DV.

Arrested on suspicion of foul play? What law/act is that contrary to? What's your code G for the arrest? What evidence are you putting towards him in interview given the pathologist gave the cause of death as accidental suffocation? How quickly do you think his solicitor would have him out of the station in those circumstances? How much would you Enjoy being investigated yourself for the illegal arrest you've just made?

2. Looked into his previous convictions. It's hardly advanced police procedure that when a woman dies in this sort of situation, you have a look at the police database and check out if the aforementioned massive thug has a criminal record?

Who's to say they didn't? Pre-cons matter for sentencing. He was never previously convicted for murder, it's of no use to the investigation at all.

Now What?

It's indefensible. And it's misogyny. The police judged her for being a drunk and a bit of a slag and that they didn't really care that she was dead. And it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the pathologist and coroner were of the same mindset

Utter nonsense

Rod, please could you respond to some of my points?

Time and again there were numerous police officers involved. All the way up. How does that correlate with them chomping at the bit to make a name for themselves?

I could arrest you tomorrow for murder. You'd be NFA'd and I'd lose my job. When I say it's career defining stuff that everyone would want to get involved in, I'm talking legal arrests

THE PATHOLOGIST STATED IT WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DEATH

I can't repeat this enough. Until they put me through several years of medical school and the relevant training. I CANNOT determine whether they are wrong or not, nor can any other officer.

Of course this man should have been brought in for questioning. Former police call outs for domestic incidences would have been a red flag for a start. It seems to me that procedure wasn't adhered to in the collection of evidence in the first place. Hence the follow on of closing ranks, including the pathologist.

It's disgraceful, as bad as any mismanagement of police proceedings of which there are many, though not all police proceedings.

It was never going to go to the CPS because of the mess in gathering evidence. Oh and if you want the problem to disappear then get a woman to look into it (which is a form of blackmail in my opinion).

I can't understand how anyone can make excuses for the case. This was a dangerous man, no doubt about it. I wonder how the police would have reacted if the sex of the perpetrator was reversed?

Who's to say they didn't? Pre-cons matter for sentencing. He was never previously convicted for murder, it's of no use to the investigation at all.

It doesn't matter at all, that the partner of a woman found dead had a long history of violence against partners. Really?!

It doesn't matter at all, that the partner of a woman found dead had a long history of violence against partners. Really?!

Evidentially, no.

Of course this man should have been brought in for questioning

Using what powers?

Former police call outs for domestic incidences would have been a red flag for a start
Yes they would be. Doesn't provide any evidence of murder though.

It seems to me that procedure wasn't adhered to in the collection of evidence in the first place. Hence the follow on of closing ranks, including the pathologist
What procedures? The pathologist happened to wrongly assess the cause of death to help the police out? Seriously?

Oh and if you want the problem to disappear then get a woman to look into it (which is a form of blackmail in my opinion)
Then you seriously need to look up what blackmail means.

He was never previously convicted for murder, it's of no use to the investigation at all.

But his previous partner had died, at home. This would have been on the system because death at home immediately means a post mortem. It was a slack and lazy gathering of evidence.

I'm reminded of this case also.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-39064218

Ian Stewart who murdered Helen Bailey. Police are now investigating the death of his deceased wife Diane also.

Using what powers?

Suspicion of murder?

www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody

Rodhullstvaerial

I honestly don't understand your two strands of thought here. On the one hand you say that police officers will be chomping at the bit to make a name for themselves to catch a murderer. On the other hand you're saying that because there was no evidence, no one could even start that process.

Obviously, there was
evidence. Because he did murder her.

I could accept that the police were acting in complete ignorance, and therefore followed a process where they were blind because of the pathologist's report.

But that does not correlate with your description of police officers wanting to do their utmost to solve murders. How many? One? Five? All of them? Umpteen of them were given the opportunity to reopen the case. With mounting circumstantial evidence. But they didn't. Until someone paid a lawyer a lot of money to make them.

Well this is disheartening from Rod. Police don't investigate unexplained sudden death unless there's evidence of murder?

How would any unexplained death ever be proved as murder if someone didn't investigate?

It all feels very hand washy to me. Really, why did the higher ups dismiss the mounting concerns? Why did none of them want to 'nick a murderer'?