What happens when investigators latch onto the first suspect and stop looking for alternatives? In this powerful true crime crossover, Dr. Lee Sharma and Heather Packer examine the 1992 Rachel Nickell murder, a case where anchoring bias led to wrongful imprisonment and additional deaths. A sobering lesson for medicine, conflict resolution, and life.
💰 This episode is sponsored by Gelt: The tech enabled tax firm for independent physicians.
Independent physicians face unique tax challenges that employed doctors don't. Multiple income streams, practice ownership, contract work, traditional CPAs aren't built for this complexity. Gelt is. Year-round strategy, optimization and compliance for physicians who chose independence over institution. Let Gelt handle your tax strategy, so you can focus more on your practice.
Take control of your tax strategy: joingelt.com.
Anchoring bias, latching onto the first story and ignoring everything that doesn’t fit, doesn’t just cause diagnostic errors. It can destroy lives.
In this gripping bonus/true crime crossover episode of the Scalpel and Sword Podcast, Dr. Lee Sharma and Heather Packer revisit the tragic 1992 murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common. What began as a high-pressure investigation quickly became a textbook case of anchoring: police fixated on Colin Stagg, used questionable tactics to “prove” his guilt, and ignored clear evidence pointing to the real killer, Robert Napper.
They explore how the same cognitive trap operates in clinical reasoning, workplace conflict, and everyday assumptions — and how curiosity, humility, and the SPARK framework can help us break free.
Three Actionable Takeaways:
About the Show:
Behind every procedure, every patient encounter, lies an untold story of conflict and negotiation. Scalpel and Sword, hosted by Dr. Lee Sharma—physician, mediator, and guide—invites listeners into the unseen battles and breakthroughs of modern medicine. With real conversations, human stories, and practical tools, this podcast empowers physicians to reclaim their voices, sharpen their skills, and wield their healing power with both precision and purpose.
About the Guest:
Heather Packer is a longtime nurse, graduate of Auburn University with a degree in criminal justice, and beloved team member at Gynecology and Wellness. She is Dr. Sharma’s favorite true crime discussion partner and brings both clinical insight and a passion for justice to these conversations.
About the Host:
Dr. Lee Sharma is a gynecologist based in Auburn, AL, with over 30 years of clinical experience. She holds a Master’s in Conflict Resolution and is passionate about helping colleagues navigate workplace challenges and thrive through open conversations and practical tools.
[00:00:00] Hello, my peaceful warriors, and welcome to the Scalpel and Sword Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Lee Sharma, physician and conflict analyst. And I'm very excited for this episode today, because if you listen to our normal Monday drop, that episode was about a really important issue, not just in medicine but in conflict resolution, which is the whole concept of anchoring into a particular diagnosis.
And the last episode that we did where we had our true crime crossover got so many positive comments about that, and so I'm excited to- Welcome. Oh ... welcome back to
the podcast, Heather Packer. Hello. Hello. Thank you so much for being here. Of course. Like, I'm gonna reintroduce you in case- Okay ... people, first timers, are listening. But Heather Packer is a graduate of Auburn University in criminal justice. Mm-hmm. She is a longtime beloved nurse at our practice at Gynecology and Wellness, and she's one of my favorite people.
Our patients just love her. Aw. [00:01:00] Rightly so. But she is- ... also my true crime partner in crime.
Yes. So,
like- Yes ... I'm just so happy you're here, so thank you so much.
Of course.
So we're gonna dive into a story, which I think is really interesting, that this story was really well known in the UK. For people in England, this story was, like, everywhere, and for me, I'd never heard of this story- Same.
Mm-mm ... until this Netflix episode dropped. And so we're talking about the story of Rachel Nickell, who was a woman who was killed in London. And this story, just from a true crime standpoint, is pretty mind-blowing, but I think the concept we're gonna be talking about today with what happened with the person who actually did end up killing her and how they got to that really does illustrate how powerfully this concept of anchoring not only affects diagnosis and conflict, but also literally [00:02:00] recognizing that anchoring was happening in this case would've saved lives.
Yes.
100% Absolutely. What happens if you get the wrong diagnosis and you get treated for years, right?
Yeah.
If that happens people suffer from that.
Absolutely.
When we latch onto a diagnosis and we're not willing to let it go patients suffer.
Yes.
This is where they start to lose faith in the healthcare system.
Because they feel like the healthcare system isn't answering. ,
So this happened with a murder investigation. So we're talking about the murder of Rachel Nickell, who was murdered in 1992 on the Wimbledon Common in London. So the Wimbledon Common is basically a big park. It's kinda like Central Park in London.
Okay.
People go walk around, they go run, they take their kids on walks, and Rachel Nickell was one of those people. She would take her little boy there on walks, and that was, like, a big thing for him. Yeah. That he would go. Of course, what kid doesn't wanna go walking with- Absolutely ... with his mom or her mom?
This case, this murder, became one of the most [00:03:00] famous investigative failures in British history. Not because they didn't have resources. Not because they didn't have opportunity, but because, what happened with who killed her.
Yes.
So let's think about the story for a second. Okay. Yeah. Because there may be a lot of people who are watching this episode that don't know about the story, just like I think you and I did not.
Yeah.
So this happened on July 15th in 1992, so this is an old case.
Mm-hmm.
so she was walking with her son in Wimbledon Common, in this park, in a pretty good part of town. Yeah. Wimbledon Common is in a pretty good part of town.
Right.
So she's walking through the park, and somebody grabs her from behind and attacks her with a knife, and stabs her. Her son witnessed part of this attack.
He was two at the time. It's heartbreaking. . And so this man, in broad daylight, by the way, this happened early in the morning, she's not out there by herself with her son. I mean, there are other people out there walking- Yeah ... in Wimbledon [00:04:00] Common. This guy attacks her from behind with a knife and murders her, stabs her to death, brutally.
In front of her baby.
In front of her son. So her son is witness to this, and I'm only gonna say this once 'cause I don't wanna say it again. Yeah. Because it is horrible.
That after this guy murders her and runs away,
So happened in broad daylight. They immediately, you know, this gets reported, somebody sees, the son there with his mother who's passed away. Yeah. They do call the police, they get medical help, they try to get the mom to the hospital.
Unfortunately, by that time she has already passed away. But because this happened in broad daylight, they're able to cordon off the park. They're trying to stop people. They're trying to get a description of this guy, of okay, who saw this guy? And of course, this poor little boy who- Yeah ... was traumatized.
Oh.
You know, they're calling the dad and the dad is now having to deal with not only the fact that his wife has been murdered, but his poor son has been traumatized.
Yes.
So because [00:05:00] of the such public attack, there was a lot of scrutiny about what's going on. Let's think back to the Idaho four.
Yeah. The four college students, right? This was an attack that happened in a college town. Somebody's stabbed to death. this is outrage.
Yes.
Right? This is the public watching this, and they are outraged- Yes ... by what has happened. This is the same thing that's happening in Wimbledon Common.
Yes. People are absolutely- They're terrified too ... for 100%.
Yeah.
Because people walk in this park-
Yeah ...
all the time. Yeah. And do they have I mean, a serial killer? Who's he gonna attack next? Exactly. Of course they are trying to identify a culprit as fast as they can.
Yes.
This is the pressure.
So- Whenever you have this kind of pressure, you gotta know what's going on right now.
I think that's hard.
Very.
Because unfortunately, if we have that pressure of time that we have to know exactly what's going on, we may not have the information.
That just may not be possible. Exactly. And I think that's one of the [00:06:00] hardest things, especially in this day and age with true crime We think it should have an answer immediately.
Yeah.
And that's just unfortunately maybe not how that process is gonna work.
No.
I think about us all day. Yeah. I think about when, someone's having an emergency, and you have to try to figure out as quickly as you can what's going on .
But you also know that you wanna be fast, but you wanna be accurate.
Absolutely. I
mean, those two, while, yes, they're very important, sometimes don't always travel together.
Right.
But-
Yes ...
in this situation, these police are trying to get an answer to who killed this woman, and they're trying to do it as quickly as they can because the public is screaming.
Yes.
Okay. So-
Yes ...
because of this, they do have a description of this guy walking through Wimbledon Common. They said, "Oh, somebody saw him.
He was wearing like an apron. He had a white T-shirt on." They noticed him because his belt was like up high on the shirt.
[00:07:00] Yeah.
Like, it wasn't like on his waistband. It was like up over the shirt, and so people really noticed him. Yeah. And they said, you know, "This guy was walking around. He looks kinda sus," so maybe it was this guy.
So they start circulating this guy's picture, and they come up with a name, and his name is Colin Stagg. Okay?
Yeah.
So they come up with this guy. He's acting weird.
Mm-hmm.
Which I feel like you've been in love with this true crime world that you get this, right?
Yeah.
A lot of people act weird.
Yeah.
Does weird mean you're guilty?
No. They're probably scared. Right. And like, "Oh, they're looking at me." Right. You know?
And
I think that's kind of a Lucy Letbyism, honestly- Yeah ...
people thought that she was kinda weird. Yeah. I, I'll admit, I kinda thought she was weird- Me too
when I was watching some of that stuff.
Me too.
But weird does not mean guilty.
No.
So-
She was scared. She was shy, and it came off as weird when, you know- Right ... it wasn't like that.
But unfortunately, I think the same thing happens to Colin Stagg.
Yeah.
He gets, "You're weird."
Yeah. I
mean, I'll agree [00:08:00] with you.
Yeah.
I think we're all weird on some
crazier level. Absolutely, but we're not all,
that doesn't make us murderers. But this is what happens. So as they, it's like, "Okay, we think we have a suspect. Great."
Yeah. "
This is awesome. We think we know." So this is the problem with anchoring, is once they have decided that Colin Stagg is a suspect - The window of curiosity closes.
And what I mean by that is that you go from a thought process of who else could be looking at what other data can we collect? They transition to how can we prove it's Colin Stagg?
Yep.
And as soon as you start doing that, as soon as you get into this how can we prove that we're right-
Yeah. ...
Welcome to anchoring.
Anchoring has entered the chat. This is one of the biggest things that I think happened as you're watching this, is as soon as the police go into [00:09:00] this thought process of, "We know Colin Stagg did it, we just have to prove it." You have locked yourself off to any other possibility
Yep
That's always dangerous.
I mean, I think that's dangerous in medicine- I think that's dangerous in conflict
Yeah
Yeah I think that's sometimes even dangerous, like dealing with people.
Oh, for sure.
You know? You assume or you attribute a particular act or characteristic to somebody, and then all you're trying to do is prove that that's what they did- Right
or that's how it's like, "I'm right and you're wrong."
Yeah.
And I think that's what happened here.
I do too, and that's dangerous. Admit it. When you're messing with somebody's life, especially murder,
but you said something really important, and I wanna drill down on that. if at any point in time the police had said, in the course of this story, "Maybe we're wrong."
Yeah. "
Maybe we're making a mistake. Maybe it's not this guy. We should consider another possibility." What you just said is the antidote to anchoring, and what that requires is a tremendous amount of not just curiosity, it's humility.
Yeah.
[00:10:00] Because on some level you're having to say, if I'm branching out and saying, "I think this is what's going on," and I'm wrong, right?
I have to be able to say, "Yep, I was wrong."
Yes. Mm-hmm.
I made a mistake. Yep. I was wrong. It's clearly not what I thought it was. It's clearly something else.
Absolutely.
That's hard to do.
It
But if we see ourselves marching down this path, the only antidote on some level is to be that humble person and- Absolutely
question yourself.
Yes. he messed his life up pretty much still. Mm-hmm. 'Cause the media gets involved just like Lucy Letby, and they made her out to be somebody she wasn't. Or we think that.
We think that. But I mean, We could be wrong. And we will
be humble and say it, but.
Absolutely. Go back and listen to Lucy Letby episode- Yes ... if you haven't, because yeah. It's a good one. So they anchor onto this guy. We're gotta prove that Colin Stagg did this. And so anchoring, this idea that we [00:11:00] gotta prove that this guy did it, also becomes tunnel vision. We stop looking at anything
else.
Yeah. Even if we have evidence to the contrary, which we're gonna find out later that we totally did.
yeah.
We are now firmly fixed on this idea, and we are going to try to confirm it.
And they might not see the other stuff. Right. They don't want to.
So now we're unfortunately in this spiral with Colin Stagg, and there's another bias that goes hand-in-hand with anchoring, and it's this idea of what's called confirmation or confirmation bias.
Yes ...
I know who killed Rachel Nickell.
I just have to prove it. I am now going to collect every piece of evidence that confirms what I think is right.
Yeah.
And I'm going to ignore- The stuff that doesn't agree with what I think is going on. And that second part where we ignore the stuff-
Yeah
that actually makes us have a different thought or a [00:12:00] different idea about what happened,
super dangerous. Very.
But that's what they did in this case. So they are now trying to confirm that Collins Daig did this. So they set up this, we'll call it the honey trap operation.
Okay.
So they find that he is into, like, deviant sexual behavior.
Okay.
And they also find that he's a big letter-writing guy. Like, there's a club where people write letters about this kind of stuff that they want to do .
Okay.
They find somebody who actually wrote a letter to Collins Daig And they get one of the police to start corresponding with him.
Okay.
And at first they're like, "So what do you like to do?"
Oh my goodness. "
What do you like to
do?" So 1992. Even in before text or anything- ... the writing.
we are totally hitting people up on snail mail right now. So they're writing back and forth, and they're asking him to talk about, like, [00:13:00] what he likes to do.
Okay, gross.
And he is responding. But then the police start introducing this idea of, "Do you have fantasies about attacking people in-
broad daylight?"
They're basically trying to get him to say-
Yeah ...
in these letters that he wants to attack somebody the way that Rachel Nickell was attacked in Wimbledon Common. So as they're kind of leading him down this path, he's like, "Yeah. Okay. I could do that.
he thinks he's flirting.
Yes.
He thinks
And I mean, I think he's in his 30s.
I
don't know. He doesn't date a lot. Like, I feel like in this day and age, we would call him an incel.
Yeah.
You know? That term just didn't exist in 1992. No. But I feel like in this day and age we would be calling him an incel if he-
Yeah ...
so they basically get him to write these letters saying, "Yeah, I'd be down." And it's like, "Yeah, he did it." That's him. "He did it. He did it. He did it." And they go and arrest him .
So when they arrest him, [00:14:00] they're basically saying the evidence of the letter, plus the way the crime went down, plus the fact that he was in Wimbledon Common, means he is the one who killed Rachel Nickell. That mean, that's literally the thought process. And so they throw him in prison for this. Now, I do think it's also interesting watching, the Netflix show- Yeah
listening to the podcast about this case. And plug for Red Handed. If y'all don't listen to Red Handed, Red Handed is one of my favorite true crime podcasts. My two British girls that I love, I will put the link in the show notes. They did one of the best deep dives on this Case. Along, this plus the Netflix documentary, but-
Okay
The Red Handed episode is fire. It's so good.
I love it. That's the one you were telling me about. Mm-hmm. And I love their voices. I do too. I
mean, I love the accents. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yes, I could listen to it all day. Same. But one of the things that happens as a result of this is when he is in prison and he's about to go to trial, the judge threw it out.
[00:15:00] Thank God.
I mean- You have, you have no evidence.You have no evidence. You have no DNA evidence. Which, DNA, 1992, right?
Yeah, yeah.
but there was nothing apart from the fact that police trapped him.
Yeah.
And the Metropolitan Police, and I think the police chief did end up resigning
over this.
Oh, as they should. He's probably embarrassed. Yeah.
Yeah.
He got caught.
because they got-
He had a moment ...
they got caught with entrapment.
Yeah.
So they anchored so hard into this guy that they ignored somebody else.
Okay. So now we gotta talk about Robert Napper. So Robert Napper was a violent offender.
He was somebody who had a history of attacks.
In that area? Was he in the same area?
In Wimbledon Common. He had been already reported for two attempted rapes-
...
In Wimbledon Common preceding the attack on Rachel Nickl. So he had already tried to do this [00:16:00] twice.
Oh my gosh, that is terrifying.
It's worse than that His mother called the Metropolitan Police this is before Rachel Nickell died, and said, " My son just confessed to me that he is the one who did the rapes on Wimbledon Common."
I didn't know that.
Ask me if the police followed up on it.
They didn't, did they? Nothing. Wow.
So they already had a track record- Yeah ... where they had somebody who was assaulting women on Wimbledon Common before Rachel Nickell was murdered.
So this guy already has his track record. We already know he's tied to the rapes on Wimbledon Common.
The police have his name from his mother, because she called the police and said- Yeah ... "My son just confessed to this." Okay. The police did not go investigate this at all. So we talked about DNA.
Yeah.
So in 1992, while we didn't necessarily have the [00:17:00] DNA capabilities we have now, they did collect DNA, and when they collected the DNA, they had DNA from the body.
Yeah.
They had DNA from the scene, and one of the things they told the DNA experts at this time, this was in '92- Yeah ... said, "There's no DNA on anything." Okay, I wanna think about that for a second. No DNA? Not even the kid's DNA? Yeah. Not even the mom's DNA? Not even the dad's DNA? There's no DNA? That makes no sense at all.
So couple of decades later, so no, maybe 15 years later, I have, I don't remember the exact time, but when the case is revisited.
Yeah.
They have another DNA expert who actually looked at that and went, "There's no way that there's no DNA on this."
Yeah. And
went back and looked, and found DNA that was not our first guy.
That was not Colin Gregg's DNA.
Okay. It
was another guy's DNA. Was
he in jail when they figured this out? Mm-hmm. I'm just curious. Hmm. Oh my
goodness. It was another guy's DNA. So they go when they start looking, and they went, "Wait a second. We have a guy and this is all much later, and something very bad has [00:18:00] happened in the interim .
And the thing that's very bad that's happened in the interim is that another woman has been murdered. Another woman who looked very much like Rachel Nickell.
That's sick.
She's really, really pretty young mom, and her daughter-
Yes ... were
That's
one of our- ...
murdered in her apartment. They're at home in their apartment.
They figure out that the person who murdered these two people had been stalking them for a long period of time. That's terrifying. They actually found drawings in Robert Napper's apartment, where he had actually sketched out where he was going to be stalking them from- Oh my
gosh ...
to watch them. But when they went back, 'cause when somebody questioned why was there no DNA at all on the scene- Yeah
that makes no sense. They go back and they look, and there was DNA everywhere.
Of
of Rachel Nickell.
Okay.
They go back and they look, and they go check that DNA, and it's Robert Napper's DNA.
Wow.
It's Robert Napper's DNA.
The whole [00:19:00] time he could- Yeah ... they could have saved two lives.
And that's it. That's precisely why we're talking about this today, especially talking about this idea of anchoring, because in this case, anchoring onto somebody cost two more lives.
Yep.
That's exactly it. Cost two more lives because we were so latched on to something we couldn't let go of. And the thing that we ignore, we ignore DNA evidence.
Yeah.
We had a mom who called the police saying, "I know who did it," and we ignored that. it was never followed up on. Why? Because we have the guy.
Yeah.
He's in prison. We have the guy. Oh, wow. It's got to be him. And I think what's so scary about it is the idea that we can get so attached to that one thing, that even we have something else slapping us in the face.
Can't see it. Yep.
That's exactly it.
But I think sometimes you need, not this [00:20:00] extreme, but when that does happen, sometimes you need to be humbled. Like, you need it to happen a couple of times and realize If I'm wrong, just say it, figure it out, get to the bottom of it. It is so much easier, especially when it comes to stuff like this, too.
It costs people their life.
What you said I think is so powerful because when we have an experience where we realize that we have anchored onto something-
Yeah ...
and completely missed the point-
...
That what we should take away from that experience is not necessarily shame, although I think shame is so normal- We
can't help, yeah
when stuff like this happens. Mm-hmm. I mean, I think if you're not ashamed and just- a hot crying mess after something like this-
Oh ...
I think there's something wrong with you.
Absolutely.
but at the same time, I think once you have that moment of really feeling, "Oh, man, I feel horrible"
Yeah
"that I did this," then the follow-up should be, "What can I learn from it?"
Absolutely.
And I think those two go hand-in-hand, like you said, that you have this happen, you get [00:21:00] humbled.
Yes.
And then the next time you're in this situation and you feel- Yeah ... yourself anchoring onto something that you can think about, "Oh, I remember Rayshard
Brooks."
Yeah. "
I remember Colin Gregg. I remember what happened and how we lost two more lives because we anchored onto a suspect"-
Yep ... "
rather than exercising curiosity and humility." Yeah. 100%. So if you just even sit and think about it, how many times have we delayed a diagnosis? How many times have we gotten stuck in a conflict situation because we've made assumptions or anchored onto our ideas about a person- Mm-hmm
or a situation? But in this case, it really did cost two more people-
...
Their lives, and really three. And honestly, if you watch the Netflix episode, and you and I both thought this-
Yeah ...
that a lot of what they were doing to try to collect evidence was interviewing the son
And from the first interview from him it was killing me.
I mean, he don't know how to express that at two really.
But keep on, and on [00:22:00] every day , I think it messed him up in the long run. There for a minute. At the end, him and his dad does, they do... They're close, very close, but there for a minute I feel like it messed him up-
I agree
when he got older.
And the lengths they went to, again if they had actually taken into consideration and been open-minded about all of the possibilities.
Yeah.
If they'd said- Mm-hmm ... you know what? This may be a case that we don't solve tomorrow, but to solve it we have to look at everything in front of us.
We can't just latch onto the first suspect that we find.
Right.
And I feel like part of what happened to that poor kid-
Oh ...
was that inability to widen the gaze. The only way they thought they were gonna get evidence was from the son.
That, and he's Two.
And they're interviewing him with a psychiatrist.
They're trying to make him draw pictures- Oh, yeah ... which I can't even.
I can't.
They take him to the scene of the crime.
Oh, ugh.
I probably [00:23:00] broke down, like, I broke down several times- Mm-hmm ... watching this Netflix episode. But probably the main one that I broke down on was when he goes to the scene of the crime, and he's crying.
Yes. He's crying to his father. His dad's like, "We're done."
I was so proud of his dad. I was like, enough is enough.
Yes.
Leave him alone. He's two. Y'all, this is his life now.
That's all he knows is y'all asking him questions. Right. And here you are, you're gonna get sloppy and ask the wrong question.
He, if he says, he's two-
Mm-hmm ...
that this man had a big horn or something crazy-
...
Are you gonna believe that?
Yeah.
Yeah, that was hard to watch them doing that. But in, same thing, they had never had this situation, two, so they didn't really know what to do. I get that. Mm-hmm. But two years old?
I do wanna contrast this really quickly with the Idaho four, because I think one of the things that the Moscow Police Department did that's a whole nother true crime.
I'll put a link to that. Yeah ... an episode about that as well, 'cause there's so much, I think that was one of those that [00:24:00] also unfolded in real time,
That's right ...
on social media. But that was another one where it was such a horrific crime that there was a lot of pressure on the Moscow Police Department-
Absolutely
to find somebody quickly. And there were all sorts of theories. There was a lot of criticism of the police department, but the police department was doing their due diligence. Yeah. That's how they caught Bryan Kohberger. They looked at the police cams. They found the license plates. They found the car.
Yeah. They were able to go and find where were these cars, and they were able to track cell phone footage. They had their person to the point that they followed him and stopped him, what? Twice for speeding tickets. Yep. Just to make sure that it was the guy.
Yeah.
But I think I, to contrast what Moscow did with what the Metropolitan Police in London did-
Yeah
is really interesting, because it was the same pressure of time. Mm-hmm. It was the same national spotlight But Moscow was like, "We're gonna do our due diligence." Mm-hmm. "We're gonna look at everybody. We're [00:25:00] gonna make sure we really know what and who we're looking for." Yeah. "And then once we've collected solid evidence, then we're gonna bring the guy in."
And it was almost like they said, "Yes, we have a tremendous amount of - public pressure." Yeah. "And we're not ignoring that." Right. "We know everybody's scared."
Yeah. "
We're still gonna do it right."
Yes.
And I feel like that was missing.
Yes. So I wondered if they learned from stuff like this you know, I wonder if sometimes they have cases where they teach people, hey, this is what they did wrong.
Yeah. And these two people died. Let's learn from that. I mean-
That's brilliant ...
we do it here too sometimes. Mm-hmm. You know, in medicine- Mm-hmm ... we learn from mistakes, and we know how to fix it this time, and
I think that's a brilliant insight. this case was in 1992.
Yeah.
And all the stuff that happened later, you know, the Idaho Four- Mm-hmm
that's a recent case, that I am sure at some point these detectives are studying these previous cases. Yeah. And it's like, well, this is what happened when you anchored [00:26:00] on to Colin Gregg.
You missed all the evidence you had for Robert Apper.
Yeah.
I think that's a brilliant insight. Mm-hmm. I love that.
So what can we learn? Like, as we're looking at the story of Rachel Nickell, and this idea that we were so focused on the wrong person that the right person went free, and unfortunately lives were lost because of it. Like, what do we learn looking at this story? So the first thing I think about-
Yeah
is that your first theory is dangerous.
Just 'cause it's your first story doesn't mean it's your best story.
True. '
Cause I mean, that was what Colin Gregg was.
Yeah. Just because he looked like the guy
Seriously, I agree with you. He's like, "He looked like a weirdo." Yeah. His belt was too high.
So he murdered people.
Yeah.
So the second thing is that what the Metropolitan Police did is they actually said, "We're going to look for evidence that proves our point. And what we all need to do is actively look for things that [00:27:00] disagree with us.
Okay, so I know what I think is right. I want you to tell me everything that doesn't agree with my theory."
Yeah. "
Give me everything that doesn't agree with this theory." That's hard to do. Yeah. And like you said, it requires great humility for us to be able to say-
Oh, mm-hmm ...
Tell me everything that I might have wrong.
Yeah.
And
I think that's hard to do.
It is.
But anytime we do that, if that's in conflict. I mean, I think conflict especially is really powerful because- if I've made assumptions about a situation and then I actively go back and look for everything that doesn't agree with my point of view, that's really powerful.
Yeah.
Because I'm gonna understand the situation better. I'm gonna understand you better.
Yeah.
I definitely wanna be that person, like, where am I wrong?
Yeah.
Learn from it. And don't do it. It could hurt somebody,
and I think along with that is surrounding yourself with people who encourage you and love you, but are willing to say, "You know what?
Maybe that's not right."
Absolutely.
Yeah.
One of the things I love most about my husband, and I've... Probably was the reason I married him, is the first time I came [00:28:00] home thinking that I had missed a diagnosis and I was really upset, and I was really pissed off about the fact that I thought I'd missed it, and about 20 minutes later somebody called me from the hospital and said, "You actually were the one who got it right and everybody else got it wrong."
Oh. And I hung up the phone and I was like, "
Yeah, buddy"
Yeah. And my husband said to me, " Didn't you just tell me that someone still miscarried?"
And-
Ooh, I just got chills ...
part of the reason that I married- that man is because he was willing to say to me, "You're missing the point."
Yep. "
It's not about you being right or wrong."
And anybody who can say that to you in love-
Yes ...
keep 'em.
Absolutely.
Keep 'em.
Absolutely.
Keep 'em, put a ring on it.
And somebody that loves you, when they say something like that, to you, like if I ever come to you, which I never have to, but I know you can handle, you're not gonna think I'm trying to do anything.
All I'm trying to do is to help you be the best, and you'd do the same for me. Just tell me, please tell me. Don't let me mess up or, yeah. But
part and parcel of that is, number one, we're aligned in our goals.
Yeah. [00:29:00]
We both want the best for the patient.
Yes.
As long as you got that as a goal-
Yeah ...
you can't really go wrong.
True. I
mean that's the first thing. But the second thing that goes hand-in-hand with that, which I love that you said that, is that we love each other.
Yeah.
If you are saying that to me, I know you love me.
Yeah.
I don't question that. Thank you. So anything that goes like that, it's like I'm not gonna take that and go, "
I'm not gonna do that.
No.
I know where it's coming from. I know the way it's being offered.
Yeah.
And that's why it's okay. Yeah. So, like, if you're in a work situation, and you are walking down that anchoring tunnel-
Yes ...
and somebody at work says to you, "Should we consider X?"
And if your response to that is, What do you mean I'm not right?" There's a lot you have to go back and look at if you're feeling that way.
Absolutely.
You have to go, I mean, there's some introspection that's involved in that. Mm-hmm. But you also wanna look at that relationship.
Yeah.
I mean, maybe time to sit down and maybe have a heart-to-heart with that coworker- Absolutely
and go, "I wanna talk with you about this conversation we had. I wanna talk to you about the way that I responded." [00:30:00] You know, not pointing fingers, "I can't believe you said..." That's not what it's about. Right. I wanna share with you the way I responded. Because then you're inviting that person to say, I love working with you. I care about you." Yeah. it might actually strengthen your working relationship-
Absolutely ...
to be able to have that conversation with somebody.
I agree.
Absolutely. And I think the other part of that I wanna kinda get into is that if you're certain, if you are absolutely confident that this is right , phew, be careful.
Yeah.
Be careful.
Oh, yeah.
If you're not willing to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong, already you should be questioning that.
Absolutely.
You should be questioning that .
Because when you are wrong, if you already have that feeling, it's gonna be so hard to-
Yes ...
be humbled back.
Yes. and I think where people kind of get locked in and hardened.
I think this happens in bargaining all the time.
But I think what I loved about this story, my heart broke for this family. Aw. My heart broke for this poor dad, my heart broke for the family of the mom and the daughter that were killed.
but I [00:31:00] think if you look at the story it's not necessarily about police. It takes place in the true crime consciousness, if you will. Yeah. But it's really about the way we think. It's really about the fact that a thought process, a simple thought process- Mm-hmm ... was involved in not only some being, being imprisoned, I think he was, Colin Gregg was imprisoned for a decade-
Wow
wrongly. but I mean, when he went to trial, the judge immediately was like, "Yeah, you got no case here. You've got no case here." Thank God. And it took the judge saying that. You know, they had anchored onto this guy so hard- You know- ... the judge was the one to say-
What are you doing?
what are you doing? But not only, but the price that was paid because that anchoring took place.
Yeah.
But even then, I don't wanna say that the detectives were villains. I don't wanna say that anybody who's had that experience of anchoring, which I feel like is all of us.
Oh, for sure. Yeah. It,
it doesn't make us bad [00:32:00] guys.
No.
It makes us human.
Yes.
And the biggest thing about having traits like this or things that are tendencies in our thought process is recognizing them.
Yes.
Is understanding that this happens, and I think this case was a absolutely perfect example of how much damage anchoring can cause.
Absolutely.
I really do see that, the same brains that we use to solve problems are the same brains we can become trapped by.
Yeah.
But you gotta recognize- True ... the traps. You've gotta see it. So as much as we can, when we look at these stories, and I'm really, really glad, Heather, that you're here today for us to go through-
this case, and I think this case really does illustrate the importance of recognizing when we're anchoring onto something.
Yes.
When we're looking to confirm and not to question.
When we're not exercising our curiosity and humility.
Absolutely.
There could've been other people killed.
I'm almost shocked that was just two.
[00:33:00] Yeah.
That's enough. I'm not saying it like that, but in between the mother and daughter and Rachel and her son.
'
Cause I mean, I guess he laid low. I don't know. And I know that's a whole different ...
I think you're absolutely right about that, that- The fact that he was eventually caught-
Mm
that
the right person has actually been served justice-
Yeah ...
that the people actually got the right answer, is an important thing to recognize. And I really love the way that you frame this, is that when we look, when we compare and contrast stories of recent horrible attacks-
Yeah
like the Idaho four.
The fact that this didn't happen in that case-
Yeah ...
that we should all remember that we learn from the past. That when we're looking at these kind of stories, and yes, it's true crime-
Yeah ...
but we still learn lessons that we can apply to our daily lives. Absolutely. We apply this in medicine, we [00:34:00] apply this in conflict.
Mm-hmm. So these stories, as horrific as they are-
Yeah ...
really can improve the way that we approach our diagnostic conundrums, our conflicts. Absolutely. and I hope that's what, as people, get into this story and actually learn about what happened in the case of this murder investigation, that they will take that as well.
I agree. Kinda like they didn't do it in vain all the way. We're learning something, even if it's just us on a whole different country, taking something from it and using that kind of in Rachel's name, in a way. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like-
Yeah ...
I don't know how to word that off the bat.
No, that's perfect. But you get what I'm saying.
I do. and that's absolutely, 110%.
Yeah.
They're in a better place, I hope,
this crazy world.
Heather, as always, thank you so
much. Of course.
Oh, I
know. This
is fun. This is great. Yeah. I enjoy this so much.
Me too.
So actually, I will say that anybody who's listening I hope [00:35:00] that you're digging when we do these bonus episodes.
What we're really trying to do is, we talk about true crime all the time. Oh,
yes.
But I do believe that these stories have deeper implications.
For sure.
and if you haven't already, go back and listen to the previous episode as well, because these are sister episodes.
Yeah.
So Heather, thank you so much for being here. Of
course. Thank you for having me. Anytime, always.
Awesome. And for all of our peaceful warriors who have joined us today on The Scalpel and Sword, thank you so much for being here. If this episode resonated with you, like, share, subscribe, and until next time, be at peace.