Home » More about the terrible death of Henry Nowak

Comments

More about the terrible death of Henry Nowak — 17 Comments

  1. After Derek Chauvin’s trial, I’m not inclined to trust a government pathologist in a case like this.
    ==
    NB, the State of Minnesota and the local U.S. Attorney have imprisoned one officer for multiple decades and have been hounding three others for the crime of being present when George Floyd expired from a self-administered dose of fentanyl. They did so even though the officers had called an ambulance to thake GF to a hospital. (The ambulance was late because the driver went to the wrong address in the first instance). Here we have a case which screams for a trustworthy investigation of the officers on a charge of criminally negligent homicide and the fanciful police watchdog recommends no disciplinary sanction for them whatsoever. The Hampshire police is a force run by sociopaths.

  2. Incident timing ought to be readily available what with both cell-phones used

  3. Why did Digwa stab him??? In all the coverage, I have not seen a description of an altercation, a fight, an anything. Did he just walk up to Henry randomly and put a knife in his chest while Henry was minding his own business? (Digwa has been described as mentally disturbed so it’s entirely possible that he was unprovoked.) Did I just manage to miss this part of the story?

  4. Because he could (and he thought he could exploit the oikophobia of the political class as his parents had done)

    The eloi police in hampshire, really lived up to type

  5. Seems I spoke too soon…

    “TWO-TIER BRITAIN”—
    https://instapundit.com/802044/

    If only being “two-tiered” was the problem…

    …In fact the UK police force has been hijacked by handed on a platter to supporters of terror…

  6. Seems as if the cops are now smearing Nowak.

    For grins, supposed the first thrust did not disable Nowak and he replied with a crippling blow…..

  7. MrsX,
    I saw reports that Nowak had had a few drinks (but was not drunk), accidentally bumped into Digwa, and, seeing the big knife he was wearing, asked him jokingly if he was a bad man. A scuffle may have ensued in which Digwa’s turban was displaced.

    I think I saw this on the Daily Mail’s website.

  8. I assumed they meant that the prior bad acts were not directly relevant to his guilt or innocence of the current charges, were too far removed in subject matter and did not form part of a continuing criminal act, and were so grotesque as to be likely to influence the jury improperly regarding his current guilt or innocence. Evidence of that kind in the U.S. is excluded in the primary trial but is admissible in sentencing.

  9. Wendy K Laubach:

    Why do you call the videos evidence of prior bad acts? The videos in question – the ones the jury supposedly was not allowed to see – involved Digwa interacting with Nowak right after he stabbed him. One of the videos was taken by Digwa himself of the victim, and one was taken by a home security camera.

  10. Selfy; MrsX:

    I referred to the initial verbal interaction between the two in my first post on the subject. I linked there to where the description could be found, which is in the judge’s address on sentencing (you can find the judge’s full remarks by scrolling down at the link I just gave).

    A relevant excerpt (the “you” here is Vickrum Digwa, whom the judge is addressing):

    Not long after 11pm on December 3, 2025, Henry Nowak was walking back to his university accommodation in Portswood, Southampton after an evening out. His route took him north along Belmont Road and he was approaching a junction with St Denys Road where you lived with your family. Henry was not drunk but may have been affected a little by the small amount of alcohol he had consumed over the previous few hours. He was not a regular drinker and did not generally drink to excess. His blood alcohol level at the time of his death was below the legal limit for driving. He was alone and unarmed. You happened to be walking south along Belmont Road on the same pavement. It was to be a chance meeting. …

    In Belmont Road, you and Henry passed each other. You claimed he deliberately barged into you. I am sure that was one of the many lies you have told and repeated since it happened. However, there was an interaction between you both. Henry, perhaps cheekily, made a comment, asking if you were a ‘bad man’. He was filming you on his phone when he said it. The tone of his voice was not aggressive or threatening but, as it turned out, a tragic error of judgment. It is a reasonable conclusion that the comment was because he had seen the large, sheathed dagger. That would have been a very unusual thing for an 18-year-old student and non-Sikh to see.

    You moved towards him and, confidently, told him that you were ‘a bad man’. This was the response, I believe, of someone who thought they were being disrespected, made worse by the perceived intrusion of being filmed. You were not frightened or concerned and grabbed his phone, removing it from him. The exact events which immediately followed were only witnessed by Henry and you. However, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Henry would have wanted his phone back, believing it had been stolen from him or that he had been robbed. That may have led to a physical struggle between you and him. In that situation, there was every need for self-restraint and control on your part. As someone who was born and raised in the UK, that should have been your focus rather than any distorted view of your religious traditions. Strong words, even a verbal threat, might have been justified but no more.

    It would also seem that your turban may have been knocked, pulled or, potentially, punched off your head. The wearing of a turban, at all times, is another fundamental religious requirement of being a male Sikh. The removal of it by another would be considered a serious act and a further mark of disrespect. It is a reasonable conclusion that this would only have added to your anger.

    You drew the dagger from its sheath and, as the jury was sure, you deliberately stabbed Henry in the chest with it. The knife passed through several layers of clothing, as demonstrated by the multiple slits in his dark top where the material had been overlaid on itself in the struggle and the single slit in his shirt. It passed upwards through soft tissue, between the two uppermost ribs, catching a lung and cutting an important vein behind the collar bone. This was to a depth of 8 cm from the skin surface. The consequent bleeding flowed into his chest cavity.

  11. If what they were talking about was the defendant’s behavior at and around the time of the killing, then I’m at a complete loss. That makes no sense at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Web Analytics