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.

Who though: the pathologist certainly has to face questions of competence.

Not necessarily - here's a shocking article

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/row-police-coroner-emerges-trial-chef-accused-killing-girlfriend/

You CAN bring someone in for questioning though based on their past behaviour

You can't. You'd never get it through a custody Sgt. Besides, You'd need an offence first.....

Let's say you're right and I'm wrong. How exactly do you think disclosure with his solicitor would go?

Sorry, just reread your post, rod! Please ignore my previous post.

He could have been questioned but wasn't. I never suggested he should have been arrested immediately, but not even questioned is very concerning. That is surely a failing of whoever made that decision?

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.

You can voluntary interview a suspect yes (if there's no necessity criteria for arrest) however they can refuse to attend

Rod. The pathologist's report tallied with what the murderer claimed. One was lying, one mistaken. Both wrong.

Can I ask - would the pathologist have been told what the murderer claimed had happened? Prior to his conclusion?

however they can refuse to attend

And wouldn't that raise suspicion further?

Reading the Telegraph link that kesstrel posted it would seem that the real cause of death of his first victim was missed because the police refused to pay for a thorough post mortem. If they had, Susan Nicholson may well be alive now

Let's say you're right and I'm wrong. How exactly do you think disclosure with his solicitor would go?

It would have been a duty solicitor.

And wouldn't that raise suspicion further?
Absolutely. It can't be used against you though

Can I ask - would the pathologist have been told what the murderer claimed had happened? Prior to his conclusion?
I don't think so, no. I'm sure the coroner has the paperwork, however I don't think the pathologist does. It wouldn't make sense for them to have it and I'm sure it'd open up a raft of legal challenges

It would have been a duty solicitor.

Not necessarily but anyway. How do you think disclosure would go?

You can't. You'd never get it through a custody Sgt. Besides, You'd need an offence first....

This is errant nonsense. The offence is death by suspicious circumstances, no arrest, brought in for questioning. Place the reasons: previous call outs for DV and a TWO week spell in hospital. No duty sgt would dismiss it.

And wouldn't that raise suspicion further?
Absolutely. It can't be used against you though

In court no. In raising the police officers' suspicions and prompting them to dig further, yes surely.

Male police officers are 2-4 times more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse. This clearly impacts how officers are likely to respond to violence perpetrated by intimate partners.

Unexplained death. History of domestic violence, victim hurt so badly they were hospitalised for 2 weeks.

Unless the pathologist's report was concluded whilst everyone was still in the house, I really can't understand why he was just left.

What if he'd fled the country? He'd killed two women after all.

Today 18:43 SisterhoodisPowerful

Male police officers are 2-4 times more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse. This clearly impacts how officers are likely to respond to violence perpetrated by intimate partners.

Jesus.

You can voluntary interview a suspect yes (if there's no necessity criteria for arrest) however they can refuse to attend

If you think they won't attend for.a voluntary interview than you can arrest. (Pace code G, 2.9 E, (I)

This is errant nonsense. The offence is death by suspicious circumstances, no arrest, brought in for questioning. Place the reasons: previous call outs for DV and a TWO week spell in hospital. No duty sgt would dismiss it

You are completely and utterly wrong. Painfully wrong in fact. "Death by suspicious circumstances" That's not even an offence. Jesus Christ. You're making it up as you go along now. A custody Sgt would very much dismiss it as it's not a bloody law.

No arrest, brought in for questioning How? How would you bring him in?

Place the reasons: previous call outs for DV and a TWO week spell in hospital. No duty sgt would dismiss it That is not an arrest criteria. That is not evidence of a new offence. That's barely a coherent sentence

I'm genuinely stunned you've posted that

So basically, I could partner up with someone, beat the shit out of them, hospitalise them, have the police out and then when they die unexpectedly in the house never expect to be arrested, cautioned or questioned?

Correct?

RodHull, just to step back a minute from all the detail, can I ask you a
few more general questions?

Do you think everything was ok with this investigation?

Do you think the status quo is fine?

If not, what do you think might have been done differently?

Rod

So they just took his word for it? There, in the house, at the time?

Because the pathology report couldn't have been instant.

She's dead. He is the only witness. Surely they would've checked him out, and found out his history? Or not?

If you think they won't attend for.a voluntary interview than you can arrest. (Pace code G, 2.9 E, (I)

Yes you can. However you still would need evidence of an offence in order to get him in to custody. At that time there was nothing to suggest it was murder, and no evidence to suggest he'd done it. (Other posters were stating his previous convictions were enough, I was arguing that was not enough for arrest)

It is stunning that you would say that you are genuinely stunned.

Let's get killing people then? We can even know them, hospitalise them after badly beating them up and we know the police wouldn't even touch it with a barge pole.

He wasn't even a witness to her death. It happened whilst he was asleep.

Do you think everything was ok with this investigation?
In the initial stages yes. After the first complaint, I'm not so sure.

Do you think the status quo is fine?
No, but I can't see a way of that changing with legislative reviews

If not, what do you think might have been done differently?
I'm genuinely not trying to weasel out here but I'd want to see a proper report (IPCC, C.O.P that sort of thing first) I can't tell from the guardian.

I was arguing that was not enough for arrest

No you were stating that a custody sgt would laugh in your face and never contemplate it.

This isn't a moot point. This is a blatant miss handling of the situation. Which is evident given his subsequent arrest (for what exactly @Ron?), charge and conviction.

Years later!