UK UK - Ann Heron, 44, found at home with throat cut, Darlington, 3 August 1990

[Stitches]

Hmm. Doesn't entirely debunk my theory. Unless my Nuerodivergent Neuro-spicy isn't picking up on somethin here.

The Carol Morgan murder was a case of husband wants to leave wife, but doesn't want to lose everything in a divorce settlement, so has wife killed, keeps the house and money, and cashes in on her life insurance too.

 

[tes1984]

Are we sure Benson wasn't just having a laugh and wasn't actually involved in the case?

That's one of the most far-fetched theories I've seen for a while!

 

[Stitches]

That's one of the most far-fetched theories I've seen for a while!

I know it's far-fetched. But plausible, right?

 

[Skigh]

1. Is this threat ongoing
2. I'm new, could I be told what we have so far (If this is still ongoing)

This thread is not very long so should not take you very long to catch up . You can see it is on going by the date of the last post.

 

[dotr]

I know it's far-fetched. But plausible, right?

Fwiw..

3 Reasons Serial Killers Claim They Have More Victims

When personal interest has high stakes, some serial killers up their victim numbers. We should make sure to evaluate their claims carefully.

www.psychologytoday.com

''In 1995, Robert Charles Browne pleaded guilty to the 1991 murder in Colorado of thirteen-year-old Heather Dawn Church. Five years later, he sent cryptic notes to Texas prosecutors that suggested more victims: “The score is you 1, the other team, 48.” Eventually he admitted he’d been killing since 1970, in nine different states. Yet he provided specific information in less than half of the cases.''

 

[Spoof]

Sorry, I didn't word that well. What I meant is that there's no 'foreign' DNA evidence.

To my knowledge, the only DNA found was from PH (which doesn't prove much as of course he lived in the house).

If anyone other than PH killed Ann, then they seemingly managed to avoid leaving any forensic evidence.

AFAIK the last forensic review was in 2005. Perhaps it's time for another one.

Does that not suggest, if the only DNA that was found was Peter Heron's, that he must be the killer? I'm assuming that it must be impossible to commit such a crime and not leave any DNA at all?

 

[tes1984]

Does that not suggest, if the only DNA that was found was Peter Heron's, that he must be the killer? I'm assuming that it must be impossible to commit such a crime and not leave any DNA at all?

It's not impossible for a killer to avoid leaving any DNA. They discuss this in the new series of 'In the footsteps of Killers'.

The police definitely seem to have gone after PH once the forensic review drew a blank though.

They clearly didn't like the idea of a phantom killer who leaves no DNA, but also just happens to kill Ann in the one spot in the living area containing PH's semen.

 

[Stitches]

Does that not suggest, if the only DNA that was found was Peter Heron's, that he must be the killer? I'm assuming that it must be impossible to commit such a crime and not leave any DNA at all?

That's my theory too.

 

[rvlvr]

I’d imagine my DNA would be found on my wife’s body, clothing, etc, if she/they were examined right now. If the DNA had been found in blood stains for instance, in a way that couldn’t be innocently explained, then obviously that’d be pretty damning, but I don’t believe that’s the case here?

 

[tes1984]

BBC NEWS | UK | England | 1990 wife murder case is dropped

The case against PH was discontinued after "additional expert opinion in a key area" was obtained.

 

[sl77]

The Carol Morgan murder was a case of husband wants to leave wife, but doesn't want to lose everything in a divorce settlement, so has wife killed, keeps the house and money, and cashes in on her life insurance too.

But didn't PH only sleep with the barmaid a couple of times, it wasn't serious?

And then PH writes letters 4 years later, boasting?

 

[Spoof]

But didn't PH only sleep with the barmaid a couple of times, it wasn't serious?

And then PH writes letters 4 years later, boasting?

What's the official view of the letters? Did the authorities ever publicly announced who they thought wrote them and could it have been a hoax?

 

[Spoof]

It's not impossible for a killer to avoid leaving any DNA. They discuss this in the new series of 'In the footsteps of Killers'.

The police definitely seem to have gone after PH once the forensic review drew a blank though.

They clearly didn't like the idea of a phantom killer who leaves no DNA, but also just happens to kill Ann in the one spot in the living area containing PH's semen.

Could you elaborate on how no DNA trace could be left please? Thanks

 

[tes1984]

But didn't PH only sleep with the barmaid a couple of times, it wasn't serious?

And then PH writes letters 4 years later, boasting?

Didn't PH say the reason he drove such an unnecessarily long route, was so he could pass by her house? I'm not sure if she was actually at home at this point, but it doesn't seem like the affair was meaningless for PH. I find his behaviour troubling to say the least.

For what it's worth, IIRC he was one of forty men asked to provide handwriting samples for comparison with the letters.

 

[rvlvr]

Yeah, I think the obvious answer as to why did he drive that route is that he was meeting his affair partner?

Or, perhaps going to pick up the blue vehicle seen driving away from the scene of the crime?

 

[tes1984]

I get the feeling Ann's sunbathing was something of an issue. I wonder if PH approved.

I would still like to know how regular an occurrence it was for PH to return home for lunch. He was the boss so had freedom of movement. Did he let Ann know when he would be back home during the day?

Was that day the one and only time he drove out of his way during work hours because of a woman?

 

[WiseOwl]

The police stated that PH's movements that afternoon between 4 - 5.50 pm could not be fully accounted for.

We know that initially PH told police he took a different route back to his office before changing his story to going via the village of Croft. The news about the affair with the barmaid became public knowledge 6 days after Ann's murder, but we don't know at what point in the investigation he told the police he had gone back to his office the long way round. He stated the reason he took this longer route was because he was hoping to see the barmaid.

Since 1990 there have been different accounts given by PH of the times that he left his office to go to the meeting at Cleveland Bridge, the times of the meeting and the time he arrived back at his office. In 2022 his daughter stated that the meeting ended around 4.20, and as it takes 25-30 mins to drive from Cleveland Bridge to his office at Middleton St George he would have arrived there around 4.50.

We have been told there are witnesses to verify his account of the drive home via Croft, but we don't know who these witnesses are, what time they saw PH and exactly where they were at the time they saw him. The police would have all this information of course.

It would be interesting to find out if any of these witnesses came forward before the story of the affair broke out, because before this i don't believe it was public knowledge that PH said he had driven back to his office via Croft village.

It doesn't make sense that PH initially told police he had driven a different route back to his office (this, i presume, is on the A67 which would take him past Aeolian House). This would of only taken him 10 minutes, so if he left the meeting at 4.20 and arrived at his office at 4.50 there is a missing 20 minutes to account for if this was the route he actually took.

If he did drive back via Croft and witnesses saw him, then presumably he saw them too. So why give the police a different route initially if he knew he had witnesses to support his story?

 

[rvlvr]

If he did drive back via Croft and witnesses saw him, then presumably he saw them too. So why give the police a different route initially if he knew he had witnesses to support his story?

Just to play devil’s advocate, I think it’s perfectly possible he didn’t see the witnesses who said they saw him - if he was driving he might not have noticed them, or if he’d stopped by someone’s home or employment then he might’ve been seen, but not realised.

His story is definitely odd, suspicious even, though trying to put myself in his shoes - his wife is found dead and he’s been having a fling/affair, and that isn’t a good look. Trouble is these things do usually come out in the end, so if you don’t own up to it initially and try to cover your tracks, then when the truth is revealed you’re seen as both adulterous and deceptive. Which is fair enough, of course, but that’s obviously not direct evidence of your involvement in the crime, and in this case there seems to be very little of that, sadly. Tracking down that blue car would’ve been huge, I feel.

 

[Spoof]

The police stated that PH's movements that afternoon between 4 - 5.50 pm could not be fully accounted for.

We know that initially PH told police he took a different route back to his office before changing his story to going via the village of Croft. The news about the affair with the barmaid became public knowledge 6 days after Ann's murder, but we don't know at what point in the investigation he told the police he had gone back to his office the long way round. He stated the reason he took this longer route was because he was hoping to see the barmaid.

Since 1990 there have been different accounts given by PH of the times that he left his office to go to the meeting at Cleveland Bridge, the times of the meeting and the time he arrived back at his office. In 2022 his daughter stated that the meeting ended around 4.20, and as it takes 25-30 mins to drive from Cleveland Bridge to his office at Middleton St George he would have arrived there around 4.50.

We have been told there are witnesses to verify his account of the drive home via Croft, but we don't know who these witnesses are, what time they saw PH and exactly where they were at the time they saw him. The police would have all this information of course.

It would be interesting to find out if any of these witnesses came forward before the story of the affair broke out, because before this i don't believe it was public knowledge that PH said he had driven back to his office via Croft village.

It doesn't make sense that PH initially told police he had driven a different route back to his office (this, i presume, is on the A67 which would take him past Aeolian House). This would of only taken him 10 minutes, so if he left the meeting at 4.20 and arrived at his office at 4.50 there is a missing 20 minutes to account for if this was the route he actually took.

If he did drive back via Croft and witnesses saw him, then presumably he saw them too. So why give the police a different route initially if he knew he had witnesses to support his story?

So PH lied about where he was, only his DNA was found at the scene and the police say he can't fully account for the time of the murder?

 

[WiseOwl]

Just to play devil’s advocate, I think it’s perfectly possible he didn’t see the witnesses who said they saw him - if he was driving he might not have noticed them, or if he’d stopped by someone’s home or employment then he might’ve been seen, but not realised.

His story is definitely odd, suspicious even, though trying to put myself in his shoes - his wife is found dead and he’s been having a fling/affair, and that isn’t a good look. Trouble is these things do usually come out in the end, so if you don’t own up to it initially and try to cover your tracks, then when the truth is revealed you’re seen as both adulterous and deceptive. Which is fair enough, of course, but that’s obviously not direct evidence of your involvement in the crime, and in this case there seems to be very little of that, sadly. Tracking down that blue car would’ve been huge, I feel.

It is possible he didn't see the witnesses of course. However, he told police he was hoping to see the barmaid who he was having an affair with. She worked part-time at the Dinsdale Golf Club, of which PH was a member. The club is on the Neasham Road, which leads into Middleton St George.

So if he was hoping to see her, what did he do? Pop into the Golf Club? Parked in the car park hoping for a glimpse of her through the window? Or did he just drive past in the hope she was outside having a cigarette break or something? I would hazard a guess that someone from the Golf Club vouched for seeing him that day, maybe the barmaid herself contributed to his alibi?

On the subject of the Blue car there is a problem - there are two different witnesses who claimed to see the car. Unfortunately, one saw it heading towards Darlington, the other says it was heading towards Middleton St George.

Car heading towards Middleton St George:

Could the driver I saw speed away from Ann Heron's house have been her killer?

IT was baking hot. Not just another summer's day but the warmest of the year, the sort of day when the sun beats down relentlessly, the roads start…

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

Car heading towards Darlington (Crimewatch October 1990 at the 5.43 mark):