Putney suspect's sisters say DNA test will clear his name

What happened

The sisters of Nicholas Brandram, who was arrested over the attack known as the Putney pusher case, say DNA testing will establish his innocence. They have challenged the Metropolitan Police over its handling of the investigation after the 44-year-old private banker was found dead on Tuesday.

Brandram was discovered at his home in Chiswick, west London. His family say he died by suicide and have linked the deterioration in his mental health to the pressure he experienced while under investigation. He had been released after his arrest but remained a suspect.

Police arrested him in June in connection with an incident on Putney Bridge in May 2017. A woman walking across the south-west London bridge was pushed into the path of a moving bus by a jogger. Officers subsequently released CCTV footage showing the incident.

His sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Voelcker, say he supplied a DNA sample two months ago to help resolve the inquiry. They say he died without receiving the results, despite repeated assurances about when the testing would be completed.

The Metropolitan Police has made a mandatory referral to the police watchdog following Brandram’s death. The force has also said its investigation into the attack on the bridge continues. Those are separate matters: the criminal inquiry concerns the assault, while the referral concerns police accountability.

The background

The arrest came nine years after the bridge incident. Brandram, a former Army officer, was working as a private banker. His sisters say the suspicion came unexpectedly and that they believed the allegation identifying him was either an error or deliberately false.

They say the family quickly gave investigators material intended to demonstrate that Brandram did not resemble the jogger shown in the publicly available images. Their position is that his appearance was an important reason to exclude him from the inquiry, alongside the DNA testing they expected to resolve matters.

Hicks described officers arriving at her brother’s home after he had woken up, wearing protective vests. She also said a media film crew was outside. Her account forms part of the family’s criticism of the way the arrest was conducted and the publicity surrounding it.

Police searched the house. While Brandram was in custody in connection with the bridge attack, officers also arrested him on suspicion of possessing Class A and Class B drugs. That was a separate allegation from the incident involving the woman and the bus.

An arrest allows police to investigate a suspected offence; it is not a finding that the person committed it. In England and Wales, a suspect remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. Release while an investigation continues likewise does not establish guilt or settle the allegations being examined.

The distinction also applies to forensic evidence. DNA analysis can help investigators assess whether biological material is associated with a person. Its significance depends on the material tested and its connection to the offence, rather than simply on whether someone has supplied a sample.

What people are saying

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hicks and Voelcker accused the force of mishandling their brother’s case and failing to protect his welfare. They questioned why the apparent speed of the initial police action had not been matched by progress towards resolving his position.

The sisters said Brandram and his lawyer had offered to pay for private DNA testing roughly two months ago. According to their account, officers discouraged that option because police expected their own results within four weeks. The family relied on that assurance rather than pursuing the private route.

They described subsequent messages that the results were imminent. Shortly before Brandram’s death, they said, an officer told him that police could no longer provide a timescale. For the family, the changing expectations were a central part of the distress caused by the continuing inquiry.

His sisters also said his name appeared on social media within days of the arrest, bringing hostile attention. They described him repeatedly reading comments about himself and struggling with the way online users treated the allegation as proof that he was responsible.

The family said they had supported a police investigation because they were confident it would demonstrate his innocence. They had expected written notification that officers would take no further action. Their criticism concerns both the time taken and the effect they say that waiting had on him.

Hicks and Voelcker remembered Brandram as someone whose family relationships were central to his life. He was a father and an uncle as well as their brother. They described his mental health worsening after the arrest, with everyday life becoming increasingly difficult.

The Metropolitan Police acknowledged that being investigated can place a person under significant strain. It did not give a specific response to the family’s account linking the investigation to his death and declined to add a further response to the sisters’ criticisms.

What happens next

The watchdog referral provides a route for scrutiny outside the force’s own management. In England and Wales, the Independent Office for Police Conduct assesses referrals and determines how matters within its remit should be handled. A referral is a procedural step, not a finding of police misconduct.

Depending on that assessment, police complaints and conduct matters can be investigated in different ways, including by the watchdog itself or through a force investigation. The referral alone does not determine whether an officer has breached professional standards or whether disciplinary action should follow.

For the family, the immediate objective is to have the DNA work completed and Brandram’s position formally resolved. Their expectation that testing will clear him is distinct from a forensic conclusion: laboratory findings must be assessed for what they show about the evidence in an investigation.

A decision to take no further action means police are not proceeding against a suspect at that point. It is different from an acquittal, which follows court proceedings. Such a decision can concern one person without ending the wider effort to identify whoever committed an offence.

The family’s account also raises the issue of support during a prolonged investigation. Anyone in the UK struggling with suicidal thoughts or worried about someone else can contact Samaritans free on 116 123. If someone is in immediate danger, call 999 or go to A&E.

Why this matters

For people encountering criminal allegations online, the practical distinction is between an identification being circulated and responsibility being established through evidence. Sharing a suspect’s name can extend public exposure well beyond the original police action, while hostile comments can reach the person and their relatives directly.

For anyone involved in a police inquiry, this case highlights the importance of understanding what an arrest, forensic test and investigative decision each mean. Police accountability also operates separately from the search for an offender: scrutiny of officers’ conduct does not itself decide who carried out the original crime.