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

[tes1984]

Hi,

The reward was £50,000 - it was misquoted in the press.

In August 1990, Darlington Police issued more than 1,000 posters for local distribution.

The official appeal posters show the reward as £500.

A police spokesman thanked PH for putting up the reward money.

 

[RC80]

Have been through the whole thread and find it a fascinating case. The fact it has been discussed so much is testament to that. I find it odd that PH rings his boss immediately after calling the police when discovering the body, whilst he is also an alibi for what time he arrived back at the office (and potentially when he left) and also his whereabouts upon returning to the office when they supposedly went to look at a new car. Just how close were PH and his boss? (Sorry, forget his name) Close enough to cover for him?

Just throwing another potential theory into the mix. I don't buy into the stranger murder. Why had she gone back into the house? Why was nothing taken? Majority of murders there is a purpose to it. Who wanted her, or who benefitted by her being dead?

 

[WiseOwl]

In August 1990, Darlington Police issued more than 1,000 posters for local distribution.

The official appeal posters show the reward as £500.

A police spokesman thanked PH for putting up the reward money.

It was £500, this report confirms it:

Police vow that search for murderer will go on

DETECTIVES interviewed 4,500 people, took 300 sets of fingerprints and spent 45,000 man-hours hunting the killer of housewife Ann Heron.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

Mrs Heron's husband, Peter, once put up a £500 reward for information leading to his wife's killer, and in the years that followed her death, he spoke to The Northern Echo several times.

 

[Spoof]

Have been through the whole thread and find it a fascinating case. The fact it has been discussed so much is testament to that. I find it odd that PH rings his boss immediately after calling the police when discovering the body, whilst he is also an alibi for what time he arrived back at the office (and potentially when he left) and also his whereabouts upon returning to the office when they supposedly went to look at a new car. Just how close were PH and his boss? (Sorry, forget his name) Close enough to cover for him?

Just throwing another potential theory into the mix. I don't buy into the stranger murder. Why had she gone back into the house? Why was nothing taken? Majority of murders there is a purpose to it. Who wanted her, or who benefitted by her being dead?

I think I'm with you on this. PH's alibi, if it's based on people "thinking" they saw him, even if they're convinced of it, is not proof. Witnesses can be adamant of something, yet wrong, so it's not an alibi.

Also, given that the only DNA the police have is PHs, no assault took place, no items were stolen and PH lied about his whereabouts (why would he do that??) it's no wonder he's the only suspect. The complete lack of any other DNA/forensics is a red flag for me. The timings provided earlier in the thread may just come from PH and as he's been proved a liar, he can't be trusted.

That's a good point about whether someone has covered for him.

 

[Spoof]

Does anyone have the footage of when PH did his public appeal?

 

[rvlvr]

I’ve seen a couple of sources state £5,000, like this one:

Nearly two decades on, the net is closing on Ann's killer; UNSOLVED: COVER UPS.. But will the prime suspect in the brutal murder case ever face trial? - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: Nearly two decades on, the net is closing on Ann's killer; UNSOLVED: COVER UPS.. But will the prime suspect in the brutal murder case ever face trial? by "Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland)"; News, opinion and commentary General interest

www.thefreelibrary.com

But not £50,000.

Have been through the whole thread and find it a fascinating case. The fact it has been discussed so much is testament to that. I find it odd that PH rings his boss immediately after calling the police when discovering the body, whilst he is also an alibi for what time he arrived back at the office (and potentially when he left) and also his whereabouts upon returning to the office when they supposedly went to look at a new car. Just how close were PH and his boss? (Sorry, forget his name) Close enough to cover for him?

Just throwing another potential theory into the mix. I don't buy into the stranger murder. Why had she gone back into the house? Why was nothing taken? Majority of murders there is a purpose to it. Who wanted her, or who benefitted by her being dead?

I think PH and his ‘boss’ were very close, they’d worked together for a long time. I don’t find it strange that PH called him, it’s perfectly normal imo that he wanted someone to support him - his wife is deceased, his daughters had been to the seaside that day and had children and lives of their own (funnily enough they were driving past the house just minutes before PH arrived home), whereas his boss - his mate - is probably the last person he’s seen, PH knows where he is and crucially how to reach him in the days before mobile phones. It’s possible he or someone else lied to cover for PH but you’d probably expect to see some evidence of that after 35 years of the police investigating the crime?

It is interesting Ann was in the house - perhaps someone snuck up on her as she went inside for water or to use the toilet or feed the dog (which usually occurred about 5pm). But the sighting of the blue car outside of the house does hint that perhaps someone she knew was there and had been invited inside. If PH did it, what was this car doing there, and why was it speeding away from the house, at the time Ann was supposedly killed? The house was at the end of a 60-70 metre long driveway, it’s surely no accident that it was there, and the speed with which it left the scene isn’t normal.

 

[rvlvr]

so, given that the only DNA the police have is PHs, no assault took place, no items were stolen and PH lied about his whereabouts (why would he do that??) it's no wonder he's the only suspect. The complete lack of any other DNA/forensics is a red flag for me.

What DNA would you expect to find? The DNA belonging to PH wasn’t incriminating - according to @Jen Jarvie the ‘semen’ found in Ann’s throat was a minuscule amount, certainly not evidence of an assault that had taken place around the time of death, and imo it was unlikely to have been there hours after consensual sexual contact, some sort of contamination seems the most likely explanation.

He lied about his whereabouts because he’d been having an affair and at that point no one knew. When the truth came out it actually seems to have worked in his favour, at least in terms of an alibi - he explained where he really went after the meeting and before returning to work, and it seems he was witnessed making this journey.

 

[Jen Jarvie]

The reward was from several business sources, hence £50k.

 

[Jen Jarvie]

I think I'm with you on this. PH's alibi, if it's based on people "thinking" they saw him, even if they're convinced of it, is not proof. Witnesses can be adamant of something, yet wrong, so it's not an alibi.

Also, given that the only DNA the police have is PHs, no assault took place, no items were stolen and PH lied about his whereabouts (why would he do that??) it's no wonder he's the only suspect. The complete lack of any other DNA/forensics is a red flag for me. The timings provided earlier in the thread may just come from PH and as he's been proved a liar, he can't be trusted.

That's a good point about whether someone has covered for him.

The timings do not come just from Peter Heron but from the numerous witness statements for that afternoon. Yes, sometimes eye witness testimony can be wrong , but not to this extent. Peter Heron has an accountable time frame from 2pm to 6pm that does not place him anywhere near the house at the time Ann was murdered.

 

[Jen Jarvie]

Have been through the whole thread and find it a fascinating case. The fact it has been discussed so much is testament to that. I find it odd that PH rings his boss immediately after calling the police when discovering the body, whilst he is also an alibi for what time he arrived back at the office (and potentially when he left) and also his whereabouts upon returning to the office when they supposedly went to look at a new car. Just how close were PH and his boss? (Sorry, forget his name) Close enough to cover for him?

Just throwing another potential theory into the mix. I don't buy into the stranger murder. Why had she gone back into the house? Why was nothing taken? Majority of murders there is a purpose to it. Who wanted her, or who benefitted by her being dead?

The offices were 3 minutes drive away and in rush hour the emergency services will have taken longer to arrive - which they did. Peter Heron rang two colleagues to be with him in a horrendous situation; nothing more than that. Peters boss was not the only alibi for the time arriving back at the office, just one of many.

 

[tes1984]

The reward was from several business sources, hence £50k.

Aug 15, 1990, page 4 - The Northern Echo (Yorkshire ed.) at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from The Northern Echo (Yorkshire ed.) dated Aug 15, 1990, page 4.

www.newspapers.com

 

[Spoof]

What DNA would you expect to find? The DNA belonging to PH wasn’t incriminating - according to @Jen Jarvie the ‘semen’ found in Ann’s throat was a minuscule amount, certainly not evidence of an assault that had taken place around the time of death, and imo it was unlikely to have been there hours after consensual sexual contact, some sort of contamination seems the most likely explanation.

He lied about his whereabouts because he’d been having an affair and at that point no one knew. When the truth came out it actually seems to have worked in his favour, at least in terms of an alibi - he explained where he really went after the meeting and before returning to work, and it seems he was witnessed making this journey.

I'm also referring to forensics of any type. So if there's no evidence of a third party being present at the house, only that PH was there then I don't see how that can be ignored.

Clearly all of the information relating to the case isn't in the public domain so what anyone has said can't have the same legitimacy as what the police know.

 

[tes1984]

I'm also referring to forensics of any type. So if there's no evidence of a third party being present at the house, only that PH was there then I don't see how that can be ignored.

Clearly all of the information relating to the case isn't in the public domain so what anyone has said can't have the same legitimacy as what the police know.

The police took 1,500 exhibits from the house for forensic analysis.

They took fingerprints from 300 people for comparison to prints in the house.

I'm not sure if any of the prints remain unmatched.

 

[rvlvr]

I'm also referring to forensics of any type. So if there's no evidence of a third party being present at the house, only that PH was there then I don't see how that can be ignored.

Clearly all of the information relating to the case isn't in the public domain so what anyone has said can't have the same legitimacy as what the police know.

But again, what evidence are you expecting there to have been? If the murderer *was* PH, he left no trace of having committed the crime, so why couldn’t another person have committed it similarly?

Where else might a perpetrator have left forensic evidence? No need to break in if the door was open (as it likely would’ve been, imo), need to be going around touching light switches in the daytime, no need to touch anything that could be used as a weapon if they’d brought their own bladed instrument, etc.

It’s very true that we don’t know everything in the case file, but if you listen to Ann’s son Ralph - a former police officer - being interviewed on the Scottish Murders podcast (around 3m 55s) he describes being informed by the police of PH’s arrest and visiting them in Darlington to discuss the evidence that they had against PH, and how he was ‘almost sure’ that a) the evidence wouldn’t result in a conviction and that b) the police weren’t holding anything back.

Edit: sp

 

[Spoof]

So the only evidence they have is of PH.

 

[Spoof]

But again, what evidence are you expecting there to have been? If the murderer *was* PH, he left no trace of having committed the crime, so why couldn’t another person have committed it similarly?

Where else might a perpetrator have left forensic evidence? No need to break in if the door was open (as it likely would’ve been, imo), need to be going around touching light switches in the daytime, no need to touch anything that could be used as a weapon if they’d brought their own bladed instrument, etc.

It’s very true that we don’t know everything in the case file, but if you listen to Ann’s son Ralph - a former police officer - being interviewed on the Scottish Murders podcast (around 3m 55s) he describes being informed by the police of PH’s arrest and visiting them in Darlington to discuss the evidence that they had against PH, and how he was ‘almost sure’ that a) the evidence wouldn’t result in a conviction and that b) the police weren’t holding anything back.

Edit: sp

How do you know he left "no trace of committing the crime"? He was charged for it and is the main suspect. The balance of probability that someone leaves "no trace" in any capacity is so slim.

Not being sure that the evidence would result in a conviction is very different from the evidence (available) pointing to who is most likely to have done it.

 

[tes1984]

So the only evidence they have is of PH.

Not necessarily. There might still be unmatched fingerprints from the house.

 

[tes1984]

How do you know he left "no trace of committing the crime"? He was charged for it and is the main suspect. The balance of probability that someone leaves "no trace" in any capacity is so slim.

Not being sure that the evidence would result in a conviction is very different from the evidence (available) pointing to who is most likely to have done it.

PH's behaviour looks suspicious to me (as does the forensic evidence) but he has plausible deniability.

The case against PH was dropped after additional expert discussion. I'm not sure if this was something related to the forensics, or if it could have been something alibi related.

 

[rvlvr]

How do you know he left "no trace of committing the crime"? He was charged for it and is the main suspect. The balance of probability that someone leaves "no trace" in any capacity is so slim.

If they had forensics linking PH to the crime he’d almost certainly be behind bars right now.

Police did a thorough job obtaining exhibits as @tes1984 has already mentioned but in terms of ‘traces’ of the killer (whoever that was) there appears to be nothing, which imo is perfectly plausible - apparently no sexual assault so no semen, apparently no evidence the killer harmed themselves on the weapon or was harmed by Ann in a struggle so no blood, and as I mentioned the other day given Ann was wearing so little clothing there’s hardly anything that could be tested for trace DNA.

PH was a good suspect but the evidence of his involvement in this crime is slim to none, I’d definitely feel more confident proclaiming his innocence if we knew more about the timings and the locations of the sightings which serve as his alibi but @Jen Jarvie seems certain that his movements can be accounted for, in the end you have to decide who/what to believe but in my gut I don’t think she’d lie about something so serious.

 

[ctaylor]

The reward was from several business sources, hence £50k.

Surely not £50k originally, in 1990? That would be the equivalent of about £150k today. Who was putting all that up? Can see in a 2004 article here they were still saying it was £500 in 1990.