When a woman was shoved into the path of a bus on Putney Bridge almost a decade ago, it prompted public outrage which only intensified when grainy footage of the notorious offence went viral.
Responding with an investigation, the Metropolitan Police identified 50 people of interest before closing the investigation with no one charged in 2018.
But in June this year, detectives arrested wealthy banker Nicholas Brandram at his home in Chiswick, prompting the newly re-opened case to hit the headlines again.
Just weeks later, after being released while still under investigation, the 44-year-old father was found dead at his home.
On Thursday, his family spoke out for the first time in a remarkable statement that put blame for the former British Army serviceman’s death on the London police force. His sisters also spoke to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday morning, saying their brother was “failed” by the force, which they said acted “recklessly”.
They added Mr Brandram had taken his own life “after months of immense pressure” caused by the Met investigation, and insisted he was not the so-called “Putney pusher”; the man who had shoved the woman on Putney Bridge in 2017.
The Metropolitan Police said complex investigations can take months to complete and that Mr Brandram remains under investigation, adding they “understand the strain that being subject to a police investigation can place on individuals and their families”.
In their 1,247-word statement and a subsequent interview with the Today programme, his family and lawyers outlined their reasons for Mr Brandram’s innocence.
Man in CCTV ‘bore no resemblance to Nick’
The CCTV footage from the incident showed a jogger believed to be behind the assault wearing a grey shortsleeved T-shirt with dark shorts.
But Mr Brandram’s lawyers “did the basic investigative work that should have been done by the Met”, said the family in their statement, and claimed that the man in the picture “bore no resemblance to Nick”.
Mr Brandram had a prominent forearm tattoo that was not visible on the man in the pictures, the family said. He also had a visibly wasted and disfigured calf from his time in the Army that also could not be seen on the man pictured, they said.
During his police interview after arrest, the family said Mr Brandram had been keen to take part in an identification parade – but said this was never organised by police.
Speaking on the Today programme, his sisters Alexia Hicks and Sophie Volker said the initial arrest was made after a statement from a witness saying Mr Brandram looked like the Putney pusher.
They added a “leak” to the media revealing details that were “distinguishing” led to his identification on social media, and that he was instantly seen as “guilty” online despite not being charged.
His sisters insisted leaks had “scuppered” the investigation and prevented police from being able to carry out a line-up.
Office alibi
Mr Brandram provided evidence to show he was not at Putney Bridge at the time of incident on 5 May 2017, his family claimed.
They said he provided email evidence sent from his office in the West End, “demonstrating that he was no even on Putney Bridge when the assault happened”.
DNA sample
A DNA sample was recovered at the time of the assault and Mr Brandram provided his DNA for comparison three months ago. However, they claimed the police have still not finalised the analysis or given explanation for the delay.
In their statement, the family said: “There was no forensic evidence linking Nick to it [the offence], no evidence placing him on Putney Bridge at that time, and no credible evidence that he was the man shown in the footage. In fact, the evidence proved the opposite.”
Speaking on the Today programme, his sisters said he had “willingly” provided a DNA sample and that police had previously told him it would take around four weeks for the results to be analysed. They also said Mr Brantham’s lawyers had offered to get a test done privately in order to speed up the process.
But they claimed days before he died, officers said they could no longer provide a date for the results.
Tribute to a ‘proud veteran’
“Our hearts are broken by the loss of our beloved hero”, started the statement on Mr Brandram, who served in the British Army in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also a grandson of Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark, who was the great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
The family described him as a proud veteran, a father, a son, a brother and an uncle.
They continued: “Since his [Mr Brandram] arrest, and since his death, we have received message after message from people whose lives he touched. They speak of his kindness, his loyalty, his humour and the enormous affection people had for him, and that he had for others. That is the Nick we knew.
“Those who knew Nick will remember him for everything that made him the wonderful man he was. We will love him, and miss him, every day.”
Questions from the family
Following Mr Brandram’s death, the Met Police referred itself to the police watchdog over its contact with him.
The family said they would “continue to demand answers about how an innocent man was put through this, and why he was not cleared when the evidence showed he should have been”.
Among eight questions for the Met Police, they asked why Mr Brandram was ever arrested, why he was not cleared after the force received the evidence they asked for and what they will now to pursue the “real Putney Pusher”.
Met Police say investigation ‘remains ongoing’
In a statement issued on Thursday evening, the Met Police said further investigative work on the case was ongoing, while also responding to the family’s frustration.
Chief Superintendent Dan Knowles said: “Our thoughts are with Mr Brandram’s family and friends at this deeply distressing time. We recognise the significant impact his death will have on those who knew and loved him. We also understand the strain that being subject to a police investigation can place on individuals and their families.”
He added: “The investigation remains ongoing. Following Mr Brandram’s release under investigation, it was made clear that enquiries would continue while officers progressed outstanding lines of enquiry and forensic examinations. This remains the position, and further investigative work is ongoing.
"Investigations of this nature, particularly those involving complex evidential and forensic work, can take a number of months to complete as officers gather and assess all available evidence.”
The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for further comment.
