Gransnet forums


‘Read all abaht it’ ... the suspect in the murder case. Why is so much being disclosed❓

(94 Posts)
Urmstongran Fri 12-Mar-21 07:49:06

His name, age, photograph, details of his two girls and his Ukrainian wife and mother in law are in all the newspapers.

Usually, the only details we would be privy to at this stage (he’s in custody not even charged yet) would be along the lines of ‘a 48y old man from Deal in Kent was arrested last night in connection with the murder of 33y old Sarah Everard who went missing last Wednesday’.

Today I read he attended hospital with a serious head injury and was later released back into custody. Also that he exposed himself 3 days before being arrested at a fast-food restaurant and the 2 officers involved in examining that are under investigation themselves.

So much information. It seems unprecedented. What on earth is going on here? How come lawyers for either the suspect or the Met Police haven’t complained about the press? I find it all very worrying on many levels. Anyone with thoughts on it all?

kittylester Fri 12-Mar-21 07:51:18

I suspect the police are trawling for other victims.

Galaxy Fri 12-Mar-21 07:52:31

And possibly damage limitation.

Urmstongran Fri 12-Mar-21 07:53:26

Please explain what you mean by that Galaxy I’m not with you.

Calendargirl Fri 12-Mar-21 07:55:36

There’s obviously a lot more going on than meets the eye.

Galaxy Fri 12-Mar-21 07:58:05

I would be extremely surprised if the police as an organisation come out of this well. I wonder if they are desperately trying to be 'open' about the situation. We are taking this situation seriously even though they are officers.

Puzzler61 Fri 12-Mar-21 08:02:21

Some of the details released have come from the public - their doorbell cameras, car and bus dash cams and private property security cameras. It is impossible to quieten the public when it is such an alarming case.
Newspapers appeal to the public to send them information - they rely on it these days to make their headlines.

lemsip Fri 12-Mar-21 08:06:59

(they rely on it these days to make their headlines.)

They rely on help from the public to solve crimes as this case proves.

M0nica Fri 12-Mar-21 08:07:42

I think the police are in shock that one of theirs committed this crime, and are therefore releasing all the information they have.

I also think they are very concerned about the security aspect. The accused was a fire arms officer in the Diplomatic squad, If he has done what he has been accused off, supposing he had instead chosen to whip out his gun at work and shoot or attack someone he was meant to be guarding

The head injury is self-inflicted, I think. In the past, he probably would have been 'done over' in the station, for the nastiness of the crime and him being one of them, but nowadays, they must very clearly be seen to be handling him with kid gloves, possibly that is why he inflicted his his injury.

It sounds to me, taking into account the separate charge against him, that he may have had some kind of breakdown or psychotic episode.

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:09:51

I think there’s a difference firstly between the information being released by the Met and other information disclosed by the press.
The Met have told us his job and age, what he’s arrested for ( including the indecent exposure) and the head injury and the age of the woman arrested and what she was arrested for.
The press have told us his name, his marital status, something about his children, some details of where he lives, published photos from his FB pages
It is usual for age and sex to be provided by police on arrest. The information about his job had to be released imo brcsuse it would have leaked anyway and then they would have been accused of a cover up ( damage limitation as G aka you says). Similarly with the head injury - we would normally be informed if a person being held in custody was taken to hospital.
All the extra stuff from the press is an utter disgrace and potentially prejudicial. However I don’t think it counts as subjudice because he hasn’t been charged.
The information released last night about the referrals to the police watchdog was officially released and again I think is in the damage limitation category but it’s possible that such information is always in the public domain once the referral is made.
This is my understanding so far and my takeaways are that this is hugely embarrassing for the Met and that much of our press is a disgrace ( who knew.)

lemsip Fri 12-Mar-21 08:12:11

well, the two officers who arrested him for indecent exposure are as you'd expect under investigation .. and he was being watched, not very well as it happens. he shouldn't have been going about his business.

Galaxy Fri 12-Mar-21 08:12:48

I am pretty sure this is going to run and run. I am worried about how this will affect justice for Sarah and her family.

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:13:02

Sorry xed posts

Lilypops Fri 12-Mar-21 08:13:17

Monica. That was my first thought too that maybe he has had some sort of breakdown, To be accused of indecent exposure and a possible murder charge, for an officer in a high position , I suppose it is possible,

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:13:49

G aka = Galaxy 🙄

Galaxy Fri 12-Mar-21 08:15:35

Just this year six police officers were investigated for taking and sharing photos of two murdered women.

Puzzler61 Fri 12-Mar-21 08:18:00

I totally agree lemsip. Info given to the police is usually confidential whereas giving it to the press isn’t.

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:21:16

I don’t feel really we should be speculating too much with reference to the possible mental health of the man concerned. I don’t want to sound up myself but we do become part of the problem. I think it’s fair to speculate on the Met and to criticise the press. They damage justice and lives sometimes with their actions and sadly their leaks sometimes come from friendly coppers. We can’t have forgotten Christopher Jeffries or the phone hacking of Millie Dowler.
I also forgot to mention the press reported an interview with the arrested man’s MiL which gave more details of his wife and a photo of the MiL

Urmstongran Fri 12-Mar-21 08:21:59

And yet, no slapped wrists for the press so the lawyers involved must think it’s okay?

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:22:37


I totally agree lemsip. Info given to the police is usually confidential whereas giving it to the press isn’t.

This doesn’t mean the press should report it

grannysyb Fri 12-Mar-21 08:25:00

I am appalled by the press coverage, I made this point on another thread yesterday. I remember the dreadful time Chris Jeffries was given as well.

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:27:23


And yet, no slapped wrists for the press so the lawyers involved must think it’s okay?

We don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes though do we ? I just find it all so grubby at best and at worst I just despair at how justice which is such a cornerstone of democracy can be ridden over in such a roughshod manner. We should all care about the state of some of our press.

lemsip Fri 12-Mar-21 08:30:58

we live in a free society, not china.
the press gather information and report it!

Firecracker123 Fri 12-Mar-21 08:33:50

What happened to being innocent before proven guilty. I wonder if he has confessed to killing her.

suziewoozie Fri 12-Mar-21 08:34:49


we live in a free society, not china.
the press gather information and report it!

Oh come on - if the press are given his medical records should they print them? Just think for a minute about the law, justice, fairness, prejudice, confidentiality, the rights of individuals to a fair trial ( no matter how heinous the crime).