Henry Nowak murder

[Pingu the Penguin]

It’s as the paper on anchoring says-people here are anchored in full knowledge of Henry’s condition-hence the ‘all this 1-3 minutes bollox’

If it was all so easy at the time why didn’t the officer do it, find the wound and treat it…

Just interesting that the whole ‘open mind until I get there’ wouldve then meant questioning everyone at length wasting much more time….and then the same people would say ‘why didn’t you waste time asking the same questions when you already knew?’

In any other walk of life pivoting from one mindset to another in such a short space of time would be impressive.

It’s also impossible to be a ‘trained professional’ and a ‘idiot’ at the same time.

The paper on anchoring was written by a member of the criminal justice system who places significant emphasis on the comments by the judge, another member of the criminal justice system.

Neither comment or even mention the very obvious fact that I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you today that on arrival at the scene the officer himself IMMEDIATELY identified Henry was injured. Indeed, which jars with the wicked lies conspiracy idea, they were also told straight away by the killer’s father that Henry was injured

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It's definitely not a no brainer. He was the only casualty at the scene and should've been treated and assessed as such. There's no getting away from that.

How many drunk people have you had to deal with in your line of work?

Emergency services do it day-in-day-out.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

How many drunk people have you had to deal with in your line of work?

Emergency services do it day-in-day-out.

Where have you got the information about being drunk from? It’s not mentioned in the 999 recording from the brother

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Where have you got the information about being drunk from? It’s not mentioned in the 999 recording from the brother

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Henry_Nowak (reference 22 and 23)

 

[bert38]

The paper on anchoring was written by a member of the criminal justice system who places significant emphasis on the comments by the judge, another member of the criminal justice system.

Neither comment or even mention the very obvious fact that I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you today that on arrival at the scene the officer himself IMMEDIATELY identified Henry was injured. Indeed, which jars with the wicked lies conspiracy idea, they were also told straight away by the killer’s father that Henry was injured

But anchoring is a psychological phenomenon causing a cognitive bias. It can apply here too.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

It’s as the paper on anchoring says-people here are anchored in full knowledge of Henry’s condition-hence the ‘all this 1-3 minutes bollox’

If it was all so easy at the time why didn’t the officer do it, find the wound and treat it…

Just interesting that the whole ‘open mind until I get there’ wouldve then meant questioning everyone at length wasting much more time….and then the same people would say ‘why didn’t you waste time asking the same questions when you already knew?’

In any other walk of life pivoting from one mindset to another in such a short space of time would be impressive.

It’s also impossible to be a ‘trained professional’ and a ‘idiot’ at the same time.

How many officers attended the scene ? It's been reported as three. So yes this 1-3 minutes is bollocks.
Three officers had 1-3 minutes each but not one of them acted accordingly towards the casualty, in plane sight.

 

[UnderControl]

It’s as the paper on anchoring says-people here are anchored in full knowledge of Henry’s condition-hence the ‘all this 1-3 minutes bollox’

If it was all so easy at the time why didn’t the officer do it, find the wound and treat it…

Just interesting that the whole ‘open mind until I get there’ wouldve then meant questioning everyone at length wasting much more time….and then the same people would say ‘why didn’t you waste time asking the same questions when you already knew?’

In any other walk of life pivoting from one mindset to another in such a short space of time would be impressive.

It’s also impossible to be a ‘trained professional’ and a ‘idiot’ at the same time.

I'd dispute that last bit, sometimes you're trained to be an idiot..

The police are human like the rest of us but there's no way getting the initial information didn't colour their view of the situation they walked into

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Henry_Nowak (reference 22 and 23)

Apologies where in those references is that mentioned? Do you mean the police being told this at the scene after they’ve immediately already identified him as being injured?

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

But anchoring is a psychological phenomenon causing a cognitive bias. It can apply here too.

Well exactly - to the author and the judge also.
Omitting key facts is a bit of a clue that may well be has happened

 

[Kinkybyname]

I'd dispute that last bit, sometimes you're trained to be an idiot..

The police are human like the rest of us but there's no way getting the initial information didn't colour their view of the situation they walked into

you're right, that last bit if fkn bollocks

 

[bert38]

Well exactly - to the author and the judge also.
Omitting key facts is a bit of a clue that may well be has happened

I posted the paper because I think it made valid points and could go some way to explaining how a mindset can get formed which creates a bias in their subsequent actions.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Apologies where in those references is that mentioned? Do you mean the police being told this at the scene after they’ve immediately already identified him as being injured?

The article is the only place I've read that. The line that referes to him being drunk lists ref's 22 & 23 at the bottom of the article.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I posted the paper because I think it made valid points and could go some way to explaining how a mindset can get formed which creates a bias in their subsequent actions.

Yeah it was helpful. People responding to something cling to information which supports their view. It’s a form of confirmation bias.

What I’m saying is the judge (no criticism by the way of him, he was tasked with dealing with a murder not specifically the action of the police) and the author are focussing on stuff that supports their view of an incident.

Neither mention or even consider that the fact the police were IMMEDIATELY aware of Henry’s injuries and lacked curiosity about that (I’m being generous there). Suggests groupthink

 

[ayrshire_blue]

How many officers attended the scene ? It's been reported as three. So yes this 1-3 minutes is bollocks.
Three officers had 1-3 minutes each but not one of them acted accordingly towards the casualty, in plane sight.

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

 

[hilts]

It seems some are trying awfully hard to justify people not doing the very natural thing of checking out if the only injured person in the vicinity was okay.

 

[bert38]

Yeah it was helpful. People responding to something cling to information which supports their view. It’s a form of confirmation bias.

What I’m saying is the judge (no criticism by the way of him, he was tasked with dealing with a murder not specifically the action of the police) and the author are focussing on stuff that supports their view of an incident.

Neither mention or even consider that the fact the police were IMMEDIATELY aware of Henry’s injuries and lacked curiosity about that (I’m being generous there). Suggests groupthink

Yes, I agree-that will frame the IOPC inquiry.

And the phrase ‘lacked curiosity’ will v likely appear-sounds like you’ve read a IOPC report before?!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

The article is the only place I've read that. The line that referes to him being drunk lists ref's 22 & 23 at the bottom of the article.

Bottom of which article? Obviously I can read the Wikipedia post but I can’t see reference to this. Nor the bbc article. I can’t access the local news article as you need to pay to subscribe. Are you able to screenshot? (I’m not being obtuse here btw just genuinely can’t see what you are referring to!)

 

[bert38]

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

You make a very good point-rest assured an awful lot of people being arrested now are saying ‘I’ve got an injury’ (good luck finding it..). It will replace the ‘chest pains’ line.

I can see a recommendation in the future that arresting officers conduct a top to toe survey on arrest-

That would necessitate a change in handcuff policy-because that would mean everyone would need cuffing.
It would also mean a change in law around searches post arrest (s32 now means you can search for articles linking to the offence for which they’ve been arrested) because a thorough search would make it a strip search (more than outer clothing) and that carries with it other requirements-same sex, out of public view, if juvenile adult present….so a load of extra work, logistics as well as more detained people getting ‘man handled’ and anxious and violent on arrest.

 

[Kinkybyname]

I'd dispute that last bit, sometimes you're trained to be an idiot..

The police are human like the rest of us but there's no way getting the initial information didn't colour their view of the situation they walked into

Judge Andrew Simpson likes this post

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Yes, I agree-that will frame the IOPC inquiry.

And the phrase ‘lacked curiosity’ will v likely appear-sounds like you’ve read a IOPC report before?!

It is fair to say I have some experience in this area, yes