A family handout picture of Nicholas Brandram (Image: Family Handout/PA Wire)
The family of the Putney pusher suspect Nicholas Brandram have spoken out following his death. In a strongly worded statement, Mr Brandram’s family said he was innocent and said he “took his own life after months of immense pressure caused by a Metropolitan Police investigation”.
Mr Brandram’s family said there was no forensic evidence linking the 44-year-old banker to the 2017 incident in which a jogger shoved a woman headfirst into the path of an oncoming bus on Putney Bridge in south-west London.
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Nicholas Brandram was found dead this week (Image: central news)
In a statement, they said: “There was no forensic evidence linking Nick to it, 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.
“Despite that, the police chose to arrest Nick rather than invite him to attend for interview. They searched his home and the Met Police press team then released information which inevitably led to speculation and Nick being identified in subsequent reporting.”
The family added: “For Nick, the consequences did not disappear. He was left for months carrying the stigma of an appalling allegation which the police themselves clearly recognised was unsupported by the evidence.
“He lived with the shame, anxiety, humiliation and extraordinary pressure created by a wholly unnecessary investigation.”
They said the police were repeatedly asked to end their investigation and warned about the impact the investigation was having on Mr Brandram’s mental health, saying: “Even then, the investigation was not brought to an end. As a result, Nick is dead.”
The family said there was no credible evidence linking Nicholas Brandram to the incident (Image: NC)
The Metropolitan Police on Wednesday confirmed a 44-year-old man, named in multiple media reports as Mr Brandram, was found unresponsive inside a property in Hounslow on Tuesday evening, with his death being treated as “unexpected” but not suspicious.
A spokesperson for the force said: “At 7.12pm on Tuesday September 15, officers and the London Ambulance Service attended an address in Chiswick, Hounslow after a man was found unresponsive inside a property.
“Sadly, a 44-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene. His next of kin have been informed.
“At this time his death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious.
“A file will be prepared for the coroner in due course.”
The incident happened on Putney Bridge (Image: Getty)
Police previously said a 44-year-old man had been released under investigation after being arrested in June this year over an incident where a runner was caught on camera suddenly pushing a woman as she passed him on Putney Bridge in south-west London.
The force said the man was additionally arrested on suspicion of possession of class A and class B drugs.
The jogger was filmed running past a man before lashing out at the female pedestrian on May 5, 2017.
Bus driver Oliver Salbris managed to swerve to avoid crushing the woman, telling the Sunday Times: “If I hadn’t swerved, I would have smashed her head.
Get top stories from The Express sent straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
“It was reflex. The consequences would have been terrible for her – and for me.”
It was reported at the time that around 15 minutes after the push, the jogger came back the other way across the bridge, and ignored the victim when she tried to speak to him.
Detectives identified more than 50 people of interest in their investigation before closing the probe in 2018, saying that all lines of inquiry had been exhausted.
The Metropolitan Police has referred itself to the police watchdog over its contact with Nicholas Brandram who was suspected of being the so-called “Putney pusher”, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said.
The Metropolitan Police have been contacted for comment.
**Whatever you’re going through, you can call the Samaritans free at any time from any phone on 116 123. Lines are open 24 hours a day. You can also email **jo@samaritans.org
Family of ‘Putney pusher’ suspect break silence after his death and claim he’s innocent
The family of Nicholas Brandram, the man arrested in connection with the notorious “Putney Pusher” case, have broken their silence following his death and insisted that he was innocent of the 2017 attack.
Brandram, a 44-year-old former banker and British Army officer, was found unresponsive at his home in Chiswick, west London, on Tuesday evening. The Metropolitan Police said he was pronounced dead at the scene and that his death was being treated as unexpected but was not believed to be suspicious. A file is expected to be prepared for the coroner.
His death came months after he was arrested in connection with an incident that had remained one of London’s most unusual unsolved cases for almost a decade.
In a statement released on Thursday, Brandram’s family strongly denied that he was the man captured on CCTV pushing a woman into the path of a moving bus on Putney Bridge in May 2017.
They also claimed that the police investigation placed enormous pressure on him and contributed to his death.
The Metropolitan Police has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct following Brandram’s death, meaning questions about the force’s handling of the investigation and its contact with him are now subject to external scrutiny.
The incident that shocked London
The original incident happened on Putney Bridge in south-west London on May 5, 2017.
CCTV footage showed a jogger running along the pavement before suddenly pushing a woman into the road. An approaching bus was forced to swerve to avoid hitting her.
The woman, who was 33 at the time, survived but suffered minor injuries.
The bus driver’s rapid reaction prevented what could have been a far more serious collision. The footage was subsequently released by police and viewed millions of times, turning the unidentified jogger into the subject of a major public search.
Police launched an extensive investigation, interviewing numerous people and pursuing multiple lines of inquiry.
According to reports, detectives identified more than 50 people of interest and arrested three men during the original investigation. However, nobody was charged, and the investigation was eventually closed in 2018 after detectives concluded that available lines of inquiry had been exhausted.
For years, the identity of the person shown in the footage remained unknown.
Nine years later, the case was reopened
The case returned to the headlines in 2026 when Brandram was arrested in connection with the incident.
He was arrested on June 15 on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm. He was subsequently released under investigation and was never charged with an offence relating to the Putney Bridge incident.
Brandram was also arrested on suspicion of possessing Class A and Class B drugs during the investigation. That was a separate allegation and did not establish that he was responsible for the 2017 assault.
The arrest represented a dramatic development in a case that had remained unresolved for years.
But it did not amount to a finding of guilt.
Brandram remained under investigation when he died.
Family says there was no evidence
His family has now issued a strongly worded statement rejecting the allegation.
They said there was no forensic evidence connecting Brandram to the incident, no evidence placing him on Putney Bridge at the relevant time and no credible evidence that he was the man shown in the CCTV footage.
They went further, claiming that evidence actually pointed away from him.
The family also criticised the decision to arrest him rather than invite him to attend a police interview voluntarily.
They said his home was searched and that information released by the Metropolitan Police led to speculation that eventually resulted in Brandram being identified publicly.
The family claimed that Brandram spent months dealing with the consequences of being associated with an extremely serious allegation.
They said he experienced what they described as shame, anxiety and humiliation and that relatives repeatedly asked police to end the investigation.
Their statement said the family had warned officers about the effect the investigation was having on Brandram, but claimed that the investigation was not brought to an end before his death.
These are the family’s claims and have not been established by an independent finding.
Police have not declared him guilty or innocent
One important distinction is that Brandram’s arrest never resulted in a criminal charge.
Being arrested on suspicion of an offence does not establish that the person committed it.
At the time of his death, he had been released under investigation rather than charged or convicted.
The Metropolitan Police has not publicly established that Brandram was the person shown in the 2017 footage.
Equally, there had been no formal finding before his death clearing him of involvement.
That leaves the case in an unusual position.
The principal suspect is dead, the original investigation had previously been closed, and questions remain about the evidence that led detectives to Brandram nine years after the incident.
Questions over the police investigation
The family’s allegations have placed the Metropolitan Police under scrutiny.
The force has now referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is assessing whether further action is required.
The referral does not itself establish wrongdoing by officers.
Instead, it allows an independent body to examine the circumstances surrounding police contact with Brandram and determine whether further investigation is appropriate.
The central questions could include how investigators identified Brandram, what evidence they possessed when he was arrested, how information about the investigation was communicated and whether appropriate procedures were followed.
The circumstances surrounding his death will also be considered by the coroner.
Why the case became so famous
The Putney Bridge incident captured public attention because of the extraordinary nature of the footage.
The woman appeared to be walking normally when the jogger suddenly moved towards her and knocked her into the path of the bus.
The driver had only a moment to react.
The footage provided investigators with unusually clear images of the incident but, despite widespread publicity, did not lead immediately to the identification of the person responsible.
The mystery continued for years, becoming one of London’s best-known unsolved street attacks.
The passage of time also made the investigation more complicated.
Witness memories can fade, circumstances change and evidence can become more difficult to recover.
Brandram’s background
Brandram was a former British Army officer who served overseas before moving into financial services.
He later worked in banking and had a senior position at HSBC.
His professional background made the arrest particularly notable when reports about his identity emerged.
However, his career and personal background do not establish anything about whether he was responsible for the Putney Bridge incident.
Similarly, the allegations involving drugs at the time of his arrest were separate from the question of who carried out the 2017 attack.
The distinction is important as the circumstances surrounding Brandram’s death continue to receive intense media attention.
What happens to the case now?
Brandram’s death creates significant difficulties for any investigation into the 2017 incident.
If detectives believed they had identified the person responsible, a criminal prosecution can no longer take place against him.
However, that does not necessarily mean every question surrounding the case disappears.
Police may still have evidence that could potentially clarify who was responsible for the original attack.
The IOPC investigation could also shed light on how the Metropolitan Police handled the more recent investigation.
Meanwhile, the coroner will examine the circumstances of Brandram’s death.
The police have said that the death is not currently believed to be suspicious, but the final determination will follow the appropriate investigative and coronial processes.
A family demanding answers
For Brandram’s relatives, the immediate issue is not only the unresolved identity of the Putney Bridge attacker but also the circumstances surrounding the final months of his life.
They maintain that he was wrongly suspected and that the investigation subjected him to an intolerable level of pressure.
Their statement represents the family’s account and should be distinguished from conclusions that may eventually emerge from official investigations.
The Metropolitan Police now faces questions about its handling of the case, while investigators and the coroner consider the circumstances of Brandram’s death.
At the same time, the original “Putney Pusher” mystery remains unresolved in the public record.
Almost ten years after a woman was pushed into the path of a bus, the central question — who was the jogger captured in the CCTV footage? — remains unanswered.
Brandram’s family insists that it was not him.
Whether the evidence ultimately supports that claim, and what investigators knew when they arrested him, are questions that further official scrutiny may now help clarify.