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.

So much wrong with that post but I have to go now.

It wasn't a family member who called the police.

The sofa was so small that it raised issues from the start.

He had previous.

Of course the thread is about domestic violence. Men who commit fb then go onto kill women many many times. Which the police in this case didn't get and neither do you Rod

What I actually meant was I didn't want to get into a wider conversation about DA, because I agree with most of what has already been said on here a thousand times already. But let's go for the personal insults. It's a credit to the FWR board that it took this long. Well done you.

He had previous

You keep repeating that like some sort of mantra. One more time- the pathologist determined she was not murdered. It doesn't matter if he was Hitler. At that point to the best of the police's knowledge she was not unlawfully killed!!!!!!!

I wasn't assuming you were male at all RodHull.

The fact that he has previous is totally relevant. When a child goes missing, the first thing the police do is look at anyone local with previous, surely. I know it can't be used in court but surely the police must think "he's a wrong 'un. I wouldn't trust him. Let's have a look into this". You know, investigating it.

Surely it wouldn't have taken the brains of Sherlock Holmes for any adult, let alone a police officer to think "Hold on, this story he's given us doesn't add up somewhere" (the sofa, the history between this couple, the odd way he was behaving) and look into it a bit closer. At least one officer at the time thought the story was not true. It's like everyone else just took his explanation at face value.

All that should and could have happened before the pathology report came in. It sounds like the pathologist just went along with what the police thought too. It all just sounds so...casual! Like nobody was all that bothered to think even for a second.

Look I'm not a policeman or an expert but even you must think that this case was handled badly Rod. Poor note taking, slap dash investigation, ignoring the concerns of police officer at the scene. Like I say, casual.

You are the problem RodHull. You are. One police officer was unhappy with decisions made and tried to challenge. One. But not you. Because you are complicit and making excuses.

Why wouldn't he have at least been questioned (if not arrested) for being the only other person in a house where there was an unexplained death? Especially someone who had been cautioned for assaulting the dead woman?

*He had previous

You keep repeating that like some sort of mantra. One more time- the pathologist determined she was not murdered. It doesn't matter if he was Hitler. At that point to the best of the police's knowledge she was not unlawfully killed*

Even ignoring the other woman who he had (as it turned out) murdered. He had convictions for DV that counts as "previous" in my book. Clearly not in the polices book though

He did have previous. He had been cautioned for assaulting her. It isn't "a mantra". It is a fact.

x-post there BitOutOfPractice

Why aren't you answering my question Rod?

I'll repeat it again for you: Can you explain why, if the police did nothing wrong, there are now three separate reviews taking place @Rodhullsvaerial?

You are the problem RodHull. You are. One police officer was unhappy with decisions made and tried to challenge. One. But not you. Because you are complicit and making excuses

Given I don't work for Sussex police I'm complicit in fuck all.

rod, doctors aren't perfect. If what the pathologist suggests doesn't fit with the scene met by the original attending officers are the pathologist's findings accepted without question? Is there no mechanism for double checking?

Also, when attending a death like this surely the original attending officers ask what happened? If the story (fell asleep on the sofa) doesn't fit with what is in front of the officers eyes (tiny sofa) can a person not be taken in for questioning?

In this case it seems like the original officers didn't do their jobs properly (as referenced in the investigative report) but I'm concerned that you seem to be suggesting that even if they had the outcome would have been the same. And it all rests on the opinion of one person (a single pathologist) who, through the simple fact of being human, can make a mistake.

In addition, surely you can see that three internal investigations effectively saying 'move along, nothing to see here' when there was something very wrong is going to give people a very dim view of police in general and at very least appear like a cover up? The reputation of the police force as a whole seriously suffers when things like these happen. I'm from Liverpool and Hillsborough has left a huge mark on the city. Many, many people (and especially football fans) are still hugely distrustful of the police. Not just because of what happened, but most especially because of the cover up, particularly those of us too young to remember the initial incident.

Finally, the women responding here (and many others I imagine) are often responding with an element of personal history of police not taking our fear of (some) men seriously. This one case cannot be taken as a one off incident when so many people have experienced being dismissed. Some cases do gain a high enough profile to actually change the way major public institutions behave. I hope this one is a wake-up call for the police in dealing with the deaths of women alone with a partner who has a history of serious violence against partners.

Sorry for the epic post!

He did have previous. He had been cautioned for assaulting her. It isn't "a mantra". It is a fact

Indeed. Doesn't make the blindest bit of difference when the pathologist is stating she wasn't unlawfully killed

I know of a DA survivor who died of cancer. Should I have nicked her ex for murder?

I know of a DA survivor who died of cancer. Should I have nicked her ex for murder?

Depends.

Was he there when she died? Was it a sudden unexplained death a couple of weeks after he'd battered her? Did he go out for fags then tell the neighbour who'd called the police previously that she was dead, before informing them himself? Had he recently been found in pretty much the same circumstances with a different woman, with the same copper and coroner's officer present?

I'll repeat it again for you: Can you explain why, if the police did nothing wrong, there are now three separate reviews taking place @Rodhullsvaerial**

Sorry jiggly. I'm trying to respond to all while dealing with a teething baby.

Because, there needs to be someone to blame. Senior officers will harp on about openness and transparency and offer someone out to the wolves.

Anybody claiming to have "accidentally" killed a person they have recently assaulted should at least be questioned. If that isn't possible then the law really is fucked up.

Anybody claiming to have "accidentally" killed a person they have recently assaulted should at least be questioned. If that isn't possible then the law really is fucked up.

Yep. I'm sorry but I feel that Rod is trying to defend the indefensible and shut down discussion and as a DV survivor it's making me pretty angry.

dinah- as it goes I agree with most of what you've said. Can things be done better? Yes probably. I can't think of many which wouldn't require legal changes though and which are compatible with the HRA.

Also, when attending a death like this surely the original attending officers ask what happened? If the story (fell asleep on the sofa) doesn't fit with what is in front of the officers eyes (tiny sofa) can a person not be taken in for questioning? Until cause of death is established he'd be questioned but as a witness. You can't arrest someone purely on their past behaviour. If he was arrested and questioned, and it later transpired the deceased died of natural causes the force would be sued for substantial damages.

You talk of reputational damage to the force. Unlawful arrests have the same outcome

You can't arrest someone purely on their past behaviour.

I suppose terrorism offences aren't included in this? (Ron, word of advice, don't bring batteries, loose, onto a plane).

You CAN bring someone in for questioning though based on their past behaviour and the fact that the police where called out weeks previously on a 'domestic' incident and a previous incident that left the deceased in hospital for TWO weeks, so severe were her injuries.

Just to put this TWO week spell in hospital into perspective. When I broke my pelvis due to an RTA, I was in hospital for 12 days, during which I had to learn how to walk again. This was in the early 80s.

We're the parents out of order pursuing this? Absolutely not. They were very brave and determined.

But if you genuinely feel no police officer deserves even a slap on the wrist, then what does that say about your attitude to victims
My attitude to victims is great thank you. There's nothing in my posts which would suggest otherwise I don't think. What I don't believe in is for officers to be disciplined by the guardian. My whole reason for posting here has been to explain how something like this could happen. Why should officers be disciplined for the findings of a coroner?

It strikes me as having the same quality as priests who felt it was more important to protect the church than anything Outsiders (who they claimed to help) might have wanted. Not a fair comparison at all.

So, in a general case (i.e. not this particular one), if someone claims to have accidentally killed someone but the scene doesn't match their explanation they aren't taken in for further questioning? That is shocking.

I quite agree about wrongful arrests, but I was merely talking about questioning. I thought you could take someone in for questioning without fully arresting them.

Having said all that, your suggestion it is impossible to do doesn't quite fit with the internal investigation which uncovered the senior officer saying bringing the suspect in would be "not advantageous" in this case. Surely if it were against the rules the senior officer would have said "against the rules - we simply can't".