Couple Found Dead In House Explosion.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243190/Flowers-left-scene-house-explosion-Derbyshire.html

The police have announced that the wife had certain injuries, and that they are now treating this tragic case as murder, obviously committed by the husband.

Does anyone else agree, it would have been better for all those left behind if the police had not made public their findings, what can be possibly gained now?

[Ric.ror]

Well it might not have been the husband who murdered her

[sp1814]

No.

If the husband killed his wife and then set the house on fire (which is what I am inferring from the story), then it does no good to hide this, because the grieving relatives may want to know the truth.

If the police hid this, and then it came out at a later date, questions would be asked as to why what authority they have to decide where the truth lies.

[anotheoldgit]

Ric.ror

The police say they are not looking for a third party.

[scorpiojo]

Would their findings not be made public at the inquest?

[ummmm]

"'We don't believe, at this time, that anyone else is involved.'"

[Ric.ror]

Sorry did not see that

[chelle7272]

No it is not up to the police to decide to hide the facts of the case.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

As yet they don't know what actually happened, why should the husband have set the house on fire, they said that there might have been an explosion.

I disagree with you that the grieving relatives may want to know the truth.

Surely as tragic as it is, I think that the two families would rather be united together in grief, than to be separated for all future years knowing that a member of one family, had murdered a member of the other family.

[RATTER15]

Of course the murderer should have been exposed! why not! the fact that he is dead does not make him innocent!

[Svejk]

I think you're on dodgy ground there, aog. For all sorts of reasons.

[jackthehat]

I think the fact that the husband was a plumber is relevant to the case.
Reading between the lines, I believe he killed his wife, it was possible that it was an accident, and then he tampered with the gas supply/central heating leading to an explosion which he hoped would kill him and disguise what he had done.

An inquest would have revealed precisely what happened, in any case.

[RATTER15]

Should Jimmy Savile's crimes remain hidden so as not to upset his family?

[Gavmacp]

But if the police hide facts where would it end. Hasn't recent revelations about the 70s and 80s been shocking enough!

[sp1814]

AOG

You wrote:

Surely as tragic as it is, I think that the two families would rather be united together in grief, than to be separated for all future years knowing that a member of one family, had murdered a member of the other family.

But how do the police know what the two families are like? They might hate each others' guts. They may have been feuding for decades!

For instance, say if the husband (and this is conjecture in order to give an example) was a wife beater.

Say if he had secretly told a family member that he was going to kill her?

What if he had taken out life insurance for him and his wife, with the proceeds going to his illegitimate daughter?

There are so many variables to consider that the best course of action for the police to take is to be upfront with what they have discovered and where the investigation has lead them.

[sp1814]

Hmmm...

others'

or

other's

I dunno.

[andy-hughes]

I think truth is the zero point where all these situations should start from - any attempt to cover up on this case sets a precedent, and the next one becomes more complex, and on and on after that.

If you cover up for one person involved, the process of covering up starts to infringe on the revelation of the truth, which is never a good thing.

If truth is the yardstick, no matter what the circumstances, then everyone knows what went on and can deal with it accordingly.

[anotheoldgit]

Well yes I can now see it from the other point of view also.

But even so I still cannot find any reason why the police had to make their findings public so soon after.

There are a good deal of "we believe" attached to this incident.

/// Chief Superintendent Sunita Gamblin said: 'Although we haven't made formal identifications of the man and woman who died, we believe they are Shelley and Simon Saxton-Cooper. ///

/// 'We believe that Shelley, who was 45-years-old, was wounded before the explosion and fire and we are treating her death as murder. ///

/// 'We're still unable to say how either she or her husband died as post mortem examinations have not yet been completed. ///

Wouldn't it have been better for them to wait until after the post mortem?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "/// 'We believe that Shelley, who was 45-years-old, was wounded before the explosion and fire and we are treating her death as murder. ///

"We believe ..." is simply legalese because formal identifications have not ben made, but the police are not in the habit of releasing information to the press unless they know it to be true.

It is simply the legal I-dotting and T-crossing that remains, which prevents them from saying "We know..." instead of "We believe...".

[vulcan42]

Shouldn't they wait until the "I know" stage rather than supposition which the police are so fond of these days? Just after the Shoreham air tragedy they were talking about a possible 20 deaths, as we know now this wasn't true so where did that figure come from and was it necessary to broadcast it?

[Bigbad]

No. Anything from a bit of bad news to a tragedy can be devasting, but to find out at a later date that you have been lied to or only told a half truth could be catastrophic.