Henry Nowak murder

[bert38]

Instead of trying to do put yourself in their shoes why not just look at what you can see.

Where have you got drunk from by the way. Why are you assuming they thought he was drunk when they’d been told he had blood in his mouth and themselves recognised he was hurt as soon as they entered the scene.

Your narrative has switched from “how could they have known?” to imaginary thoughts they may have had.

Look with your own eyes at what happened and defend what they did, if you think it is defensible

Have i said he was drunk? if I have, I apologise. I have said, I believe the officer may have thought he was intoxicated by his presentation and that led to a wrongly formed opinion and a dismissal of Henry's plea-evidenced by 'I think he's going to be sick'. But other things can present as in drink/intoxication-and sadly that is very clear.

The IOPC will have to consider what was in the mind of the officer at the time-otherwise if its merely objective, why bother interview him? I'm not defending the indefensible. The officer must have an opportunity to present his case and his thought processes as I'm sure you appreciate.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I’m not sure it is 2 teir policing. Any enquiry might go down that line, but I’m not convinced. It was bloody awful dereliction of duties by trained public officials though. Absolutely no doubt in my mind of that

It was bad fortunately i found it more upsetting that a young lad life was taken and he allowed to die in that manner, I can fully understand the anger though, attacking Police isn’t the way forward achieves nothing. But the laws of the country must apply to all equally and be seen to do so. There is zero reason for a 9” knife to be carried. My old fella god rest his soul who didn’t have a bias bone said when we all had to wear crash helmets and Sikhs were allowed not to he simply said it’s easy can’t wear a crash helmet can’t ride a motorbike in the UK.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Have i said he was drunk? if I have, I apologise. I have said, I believe the officer may have thought he was intoxicated by his presentation and that led to a wrongly formed opinion and a dismissal of Henry's plea-evidenced by 'I think he's going to be sick'. But other things can present as in drink/intoxication-and sadly that is very clear.

The IOPC will have to consider what was in the mind of the officer at the time-otherwise if its merely objective, why bother interview him? I'm not defending the indefensible. The officer must have an opportunity to present his case and his thought processes as I'm sure you appreciate.

Of course the copper should have the right to defend himself. I’m just some bloke on the internet irrelevant to the proceedings he will face.

What body cam footage has done (helpfully for both victims and the police who I know get accused of wrong doing vindictively all the time) is allow us to be objective.

You are imagining what was going on in the police man’s head. I’m not sure why you are doing that especially after the officer had been told and recognises himself that Henry was hurt instantly after arriving on scene. He assessed himself straight away that he had an injured person in front of him but put him face down and cuffed him despite the person saying multiple times he had been stabbed. We can all see that for ourselves. There’s no debate about it.

You have defended that action as being understandable, and explainable. In the circumstances I find that mind boggling to be honest.

 

[bert38]

The whole incident is terribly upsetting. The below articles gives a timeline-and does include that Henry's blood alcohol was below the drink drive limit.

It also mentions the second knife-which is clearly illegal to possess.

But most upsetting is the 999 call made by his brother..its not two-tiered policing that led to Henry's death-this is the result of a cruel, manipulative family, prepared to lie-and so quickly fabricate a story which is remarkably wicked, and show complete disregard for human life.

Why the arresting officer held that fixed mindset even for a brief period is what the IOPC will attempt to establish. Maybe I'm wrong to put myself in his shoes but likewise I can empathise.

Henry Nowak murder: What we know about how the events unfolded

The student was 18 when he was stabbed by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa in Southampton in December 2025.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Of course the copper should have the right to defend himself. I’m just some bloke on the internet irrelevant to the proceedings he will face.

What body cam footage has done (helpfully for both victims and the police who I know get accused of wrong doing vindictively all the time) is allow us to be objective.

You are imagining what was going on in the police man’s head. I’m not sure why you are doing that especially after the officer had been told and recognises himself that Henry was hurt instantly after arriving on scene. He assessed himself straight away that he had an injured person in front of him but put him face down and cuffed him despite the person saying multiple times he had been stabbed. We can all see that for ourselves. There’s no debate about it.

You have defended that action as being understandable, and explainable. In the circumstances I find that mind boggling to be honest.

He recognises he's been hurt and can see a facial injury. Given the time of night and conditions it's not unreasonable for him to assume that he's been hurt as a result of a fall rather than being stabbed. Henry tells him he's been stabbed, but the officer has been told he's an assailant and has hurt himself trying to run away. I know it's objective, but I do find it understandable, yet totally tragic, that his own report was initially dismissed.

 

[bert38]

He recognises he's been hurt and can see a facial injury. Given the time of night and conditions it's not unreasonable for him to assume that he's been hurt as a result of a fall rather than being stabbed. Henry tells him he's been stabbed, but the officer has been told he's an assailant and has hurt himself trying to run away. I know it's objective, but I do find it understandable, yet totally tragic, that his own report was initially dismissed.

Indeed-I think we are all pretty much on the same page, aside from the rare pitchfork bearer-its an absolutely horrific murder and the circumstances of all it hard to grasp.

 

[Dax777]

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes-I think he sees an intoxicated male and his brain is then blind to the alternative and he treats Henry's pleas as just drunken rambling.

This error is unacceptable though. He knew tha kid was hurt. :(

 

[pmoney]

Old bigots who piss and moan about everything don’t tend to go to riots, so you’ve def got a point. Farage knows his rhetoric appeals to these people and that’s why he’s happy to sink to such depths.

If Farage wins the next election it wont be solely on the votes of "old bigots" and these few hundred protestors.

 

[hello]

Wow, can't believe folks are still trying to defend the police officer(s), A fucking dog walker stumbling into the victim would have been more use. They would have called an ambulance straight away and at least tried to help/reassure the victim. yet actual paid first responders were told he's got blood in the mouth as they arrived on scene, A scene where everyone else was stood up walking and talking. That initial triage should have took 10 seconds tops, then basic first aid kicks in Airways, Breathing, Circulation at A, Airways block by own blood, he's telling he's been stabbed and can't breathe. Oh I know lets drag him along the floor force him upright and cuff him I remember that on my first aid refresher course.

And that balding ginger **** of a chief constable with a straight face gloating about them switching to first aid mode in only 3 minutes. What a fucking joke.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

He recognises he's been hurt and can see a facial injury. Given the time of night and conditions it's not unreasonable for him to assume that he's been hurt as a result of a fall rather than being stabbed. Henry tells him he's been stabbed, but the officer has been told he's an assailant and has hurt himself trying to run away. I know it's objective, but I do find it understandable, yet totally tragic, that his own report was initially dismissed.

It’s really not understandable at all to me.

You have someone in front of you who you yourself have immediately assessed as being injured. You put them face down, you drag them, and you do nothing until your fellow police officer tells you they are unresponsive.

If you think that is acceptable policing I’m not sure what to say really.

Everyone view things differently through their own lens I suppose.

 

[bert38]

Wow, can't believe folks are still trying to defend the police officer(s), A fucking dog walker stumbling into the victim would have been more use. They would have called an ambulance straight away and at least tried to help/reassure the victim. yet actual paid first responders were told he's got blood in the mouth as they arrived on scene, A scene where everyone else was stood up walking and talking. That initial triage should have took 10 seconds tops, then basic first aid kicks in Airways, Breathing, Circulation at A, Airways block by own blood, he's telling he's been stabbed and can't breathe. Oh I know lets drag him along the floor force him upright and cuff him I remember that on my first aid refresher course.

And that balding ginger **** of a chief constable with a straight face gloating about them switching to first aid mode in only 3 minutes. What a fucking joke.

steady on the ginger...that's a hate crime..or it should be

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Wow, can't believe folks are still trying to defend the police officer(s), A fucking dog walker stumbling into the victim would have been more use. They would have called an ambulance straight away and at least tried to help/reassure the victim.

A dog walker stumbling into the victim wouldn't have been lied to by others telling the dog walker that he fell whilst trying to run away after committing a crime.

The problem here is that they were hugely misled by several people who, at the time, would've appeared credible.

 

[hilts]

Just worth pointing out that the murderer in this case was already wearing a much smaller ceremonial kirpan round his neck, that met his religious obligations. The murder weapon was one of a number of larger weapons he owned which were more to do with him being a wrong 'un rather than any required religious adherence.

I'm not saying we can't/shouldn't have the debate but I think we need to be clear eyed that this wasn't a man who used a religious symbol as a weapon. It was a man who committed a murder with a lethal weapon that he had no religious need to own or carry, full stop.

Yeah i knew that and I agree but there isnt any need for such things in this modern world.

 

[hilts]

A dog walker stumbling into the victim wouldn't have been lied to by others telling the dog walker that he fell whilst trying to run away after committing a crime.

The problem here is that they were hugely misled by several people who, at the time, would've appeared credible.

Yeah just believing people is a great characteristic for a copper.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Yeah just believing people is a great characteristic for a copper.

They were provided a plausible description of events by persons whom - at the time - they had no reason to disbelieve. It's a rare and extreme, tragic case where they've been completely lied to upon taking an initial report.

If you call the Police tonight to tell them you've been beaten up and had your wallet stolen and at least 2 other people are backing up your story - rest assured you'd expect them to believe you. If an investigation took place and it turned out you and everyone else was lying, they'd find that out in due course. Sadly here, they didn't have "due course". They had 3 minutes.

 

[hilts]

They were provided a plausible description of events by persons whom - at the time - they had no reason to disbelieve. It's a rare and extreme, tragic case where they've been completely lied to upon taking an initial report.

If you call the Police tonight to tell them you've been beaten up and had your wallet stolen and at least 2 other people are backing up your story - rest assured you'd expect them to believe you. If an investigation took place and it turned out you and everyone else was lying, they'd find that out in due course. Sadly here, they didn't have "due course". They had 3 minutes.

What did they say happened when they rang the police?

 

[ayrshire_blue]

What did they say happened when they rang the police?

Watch the video and see what they said when Police arrived.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

They were provided a plausible description of events by persons whom - at the time - they had no reason to disbelieve. It's a rare and extreme, tragic case where they've been completely lied to upon taking an initial report.

If you call the Police tonight to tell them you've been beaten up and had your wallet stolen and at least 2 other people are backing up your story - rest assured you'd expect them to believe you. If an investigation took place and it turned out you and everyone else was lying, they'd find that out in due course. Sadly here, they didn't have "due course". They had 3 minutes.

Yeah but I’m that hypothetical scenario nobody has been stabbed. If the coppers came round and the victim then says they’ve been stabbed, you’d expect they would give you a thorough check regardless of anything else. Not drag you a few yards and tell you you haven’t been stabbed.

 

[Dax777]

A dog walker stumbling into the victim wouldn't have been lied to by others telling the dog walker that he fell whilst trying to run away after committing a crime.

The problem here is that they were hugely misled by several people who, at the time, would've appeared credible.

Even if it were the case that his injury was in fact from falling after trying to flee, and it was true he was the assailant, this should not have changed how the police approached the situation. The assailant is injured and cant sit up. What is the injury? Broke a leg? A back? A neck?

The presumed " victims" weren't holding him down, they were holding him up. With blood in his mouth. Head injury perhaps? Should have been one of the first thoughts.

Its a major fuck up. no matter how you look at it.

Even if you assumed every claim by the killer and his family to be true.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

They were provided a plausible description of events by persons whom - at the time - they had no reason to disbelieve. It's a rare and extreme, tragic case where they've been completely lied to upon taking an initial report.

If you call the Police tonight to tell them you've been beaten up and had your wallet stolen and at least 2 other people are backing up your story - rest assured you'd expect them to believe you. If an investigation took place and it turned out you and everyone else was lying, they'd find that out in due course. Sadly here, they didn't have "due course". They had 3 minutes.

Sadly, the lad was on borrowed time when the police turned up. Not even an on-scene trauma surgeon would have been able to save him from what I've read.