Sisters of 'Putney pusher' suspect say DNA will clear his name
Nicholas Brandram, a former Army officer suspected in the 2017 'Putney pusher' incident where a woman was pushed in front of a bus, has died by suicide according to his sisters. The sisters claim he was innocent and believe the Metropolitan Police investigation caused immense pressure leading to his death. They argue that his physical characteristics do not match the attacker's description, he had no connection to the area, and he voluntarily provided a DNA sample which was never released. The sisters accuse the police of negligence and recklessness, stating the case against their brother emerged unexpectedly and was based on either malicious or mistaken allegations. The Metropolitan Police acknowledged the strain of being investigated but did not comment on the specific claims of negligence.
Nicholas Brandram, the suspect in the "Putney pusher" case, has been found dead in his west London home, according to his sisters. The sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Voelcker, told the BBC that a DNA test would clear their brother's name, which they insist was wrongfully implicated in the 2017 incident. Brandram was arrested in June, nearly nine years after a woman was pushed in front of a moving bus on Putney Bridge. He had given a DNA sample to police two months prior but had yet to receive the results, his sisters said. The sisters accused the Metropolitan Police of negligence and recklessness, claiming their brother was not the attacker. They stated that his physical appearance did not match the description of the perpetrator, noting he had a withered leg from an old Army injury and a prominent military tattoo. Additionally, they pointed out that he lived in Notting Hill, had no connection with Putney, and had sent an email from his Bond Street office around the time of the attack. The victim reportedly described the attacker as having brown eyes, while their brother had blue eyes. Brandram's sisters emphasized that there was no credible evidence linking him to the incident. They argued that the police investigation began without sufficient grounds and that the DNA test, which could have exonerated him, was delayed unnecessarily. They mentioned that their brother had expressed frustration over the lack of urgency in clearing his name, especially since he had willingly provided a DNA sample to expedite the process. The sisters described the hostile nature of Brandram's arrest, noting that he was confronted by a group of armed police officers and a media crew. During his detention, he was also arrested on suspicion of drug possession. They highlighted the deterioration of his mental health, attributing it to the ongoing stress of the investigation. They noted that his name was leaked on social media shortly after his arrest, leading to negative online commentary. Brandram's family insists that he took his own life due to the immense pressure from the investigation. They criticized the police for failing to provide timely results from the DNA test, despite assurances that the results would be available within four weeks. The sisters revealed that their brother and his legal team had offered to pay for a private DNA test to accelerate the process, but the police refused, stating they would handle it internally. The sisters expressed deep disappointment with the police, accusing them of neglecting their duty of care. They stated that they had placed their trust in the justice system and the Metropolitan Police, believing that the investigation would ultimately prove their brother's innocence. They emphasized that the police were aware of his innocence and should have acted accordingly. Brandram, a former Army officer and private banker, was found unresponsive in his £1.4 million home in Chiswick. His family has publicly condemned the handling of his case, asserting that there was no forensic evidence linking him to the incident and no credible evidence placing him at the scene. They also noted that the police had not conducted a lineup to identify the suspect, which they believe could have helped clarify the situation. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that the investigation into Brandram is ongoing and has referred itself to the police watchdog regarding contact with Brandram before his death. Chief Superintendent Dan Knowles acknowledged the emotional impact of Brandram's death on his family and friends, recognizing the strain of being subjected to a police investigation. However, the force has not commented directly on the sisters' allegations of negligence or recklessness.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Nicholas Brandram, a former Army officer suspected in the 2017 'Putney pusher' incident where a woman was pushed in front of a bus, has died by suicide according to his sisters. The sisters claim he was innocent and believe the Metropolitan Police investigation caused immense pressure leading to his death. They argue that his physical characteristics do not match the attacker's description, he had no connection to the area, and he voluntarily provided a DNA sample which was never released. The sisters accuse the police of negligence and recklessness, stating the case against their brother emerged unexpectedly and was based on either malicious or mistaken allegations. The Metropolitan Police acknowledged the strain of being investigated but did not comment on the specific claims of negligence.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the police investigation as causing undue stress and suggests potential negligence, aligning with left-leaning critiques of law enforcement practices. The emphasis on the family's claims of innocence and the systemic issues within the police force reflects a leftward framing.
Why factuality (90): This article provides consistent information across multiple sources, including the DNA test results, the timeline of the investigation, and the family's claims. It includes quotes from the sisters and references to the Met's response, aligning closely with the cross-source consensus.
Why objectivity (70): While the article presents the family's allegations, it also includes the Met's statement acknowledging the strain of investigations. However, the language used to describe the sisters' accusations ('malicious or mistaken') introduces some bias, though it is presented as a quote from the Met rather
BBC News (UK)State / PublicProgressiveFactual 88Objective 68
The sisters of Nicholas Brandram, a man suspected of being the 'Putney pusher,' have told the BBC that their brother was innocent and criticized the Metropolitan Police for lacking urgency in clearing his name. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, they accused the police of being 'negligent and reckless' and claimed their brother took his own life after months of intense pressure from the investigation. The sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Voelcker, expressed concerns over the police's failure to conduct DNA tests that could have proven Brandram's innocence and noted a decline in his mental health following his arrest.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the police's handling of the case in a critical light, emphasizing negligence and recklessness, which aligns with a left-leaning perspective. It highlights the emotional impact on the family and questions the police's procedures, suggesting a lack of due diligence. While not overt
Why factuality (88): The article accurately reflects the sisters' claims about the lack of urgency in the DNA test and the impact on the suspect's mental health. It corroborates the timeline and the family's assertions, maintaining consistency with other reports.
Why objectivity (68): The article uses emotive language such as 'failed' and 'turmoil' to describe the experience of the suspect and his family. While it includes the Met's general acknowledgment of strain, it does not present counterpoints or balance the narrative with police perspectives.
The family of Nicholas Brandram, a man arrested in connection with the 2013 'Putney pusher' incident, claims he sought to pay for a private DNA test to prove his innocence after feeling abandoned by the Metropolitan Police. Brandram was arrested in June 2023 over nine years after the incident, during which a jogger pushed a woman onto a moving bus. His family says the police mishandled the case, leaking information that led to his identification online and caused significant personal distress. They argue that the lack of urgency in processing the DNA test and the failure to conduct a proper lineup undermined the investigation. The family insists Brandram was not involved in the attack and took his own life due to the pressure from the ongoing inquiry.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the family's perspective alongside their criticisms of the Metropolitan Police without overtly favoring either side. It does not include direct quotes or statements from the police or other authorities, nor does it present a clear ideological slant in its language or framing. It
Why factuality (87): The article consistently reports the family's claims about the DNA test, the leak to the media, and the impact on the suspect's mental health. It aligns with other sources regarding the timeline and the family's insistence on innocence.
Why objectivity (66): The language used to describe the family's experience is emotionally charged, particularly phrases like 'scuppered the investigation' and 'instantly seen as guilty.' While the article includes the Met's general response, it lacks a balanced presentation of both sides.
The sisters of Nicholas Brandram, a 44-year-old private banker arrested in connection with the 2017 Putney Pusher incident, have criticized the Metropolitan Police for their handling of the case. They claim the police were negligent in their investigation and delayed providing results of a DNA test that could prove their brother’s innocence. According to the sisters, Brandram offered to pay for a private DNA test to expedite the process, but the police assured him results would come within four weeks. However, over two months passed with no results, leading to significant stress on Brandram, who eventually took his own life. His family insists there was no credible evidence against him and believes the police knew of his innocence.
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents the family's perspective, emphasizing the failure of the Metropolitan Police and suggesting systemic negligence. It frames the police as withholding information and failing in their duty, which aligns with a critical view of law enforcement and supports the narrative of systemic
Why factuality (85): The article presents the sisters' claims about the Met Police's handling of the case and the DNA test, which aligns with the cross-source consensus. It mentions the timeline of events, the offer to pay for a private DNA test, and the family's assertion of innocence. However, it does not provide inde
Why objectivity (65): The tone is sympathetic to the family's perspective, using emotionally charged language such as 'failed our brother' and 'heartbreaking.' The article frames the police's actions negatively without presenting alternative viewpoints or official responses beyond the Met's general acknowledgment of stra
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United Kingdom
