UK UK-Arthur Brumhill, 76, pet shop worker, beaten to death, w. tyre lever & covered in straw, @ Denton's Pet &Garden Centre, Northampton, 22 Jan., 1993.

[dotr]

Jan 2023 lengthy article.

Brutal murder of pet shop worker examined as police issue plea in unsolved case

Pet shop worker Arthur Brumhill, 76, was found brutally beaten in the basement of his workplace, now police have issued a fresh plea for information 30 years on from his murder

www.mirror.co.uk

'On January 22, 1993, 76-year-old pet shop worker Arthur Brumhill was found brutally beaten to death in the basement of Denton's Pet and Garden Centre in Northampton.'

'Arthur's body was found by a co-worker, covered in straw. Investigators later revealed he had 26 injuries, most likely from a tyre lever which had been discarded from the scene.'

''Business owner Arthur Brumhill had officially retired, but his love for animals drew him back to work in a pet store part time.
His daughter Sue would later describe him as a "kind", "gentle" and "quietly spoken" man with a "great sense of humour". Arthur was a much-loved member of the community.
He had worked at the pet shop for 11 years, and for two weeks in January 1993 he was looking after the store while the owners were away.''

'He said it looked like the shopkeeper was speaking to someone he knew, who he described as looking like someone in his late teens with mousy brown hair, and around 5ft 5. This was the last time Arthur is known to have been seen alive.
Another witness claimed to have seen a suspicious-looking man hanging around outside the shop at around 10.20pm. He was described as a slim man in his early 30s, around 5ft 10, with short dark hair, wearing a fluorescent yellow road workers jacket.'

''On the morning of January 22, 1993, several other witnesses claimed to have seen a suspicious looking man in a yellow tracksuit in the nearby area.
Most descriptions agreed that he looked like a man in his mid-30s, between 5ft 11 and 6ft, with blonde hair, wearing a yellow tracksuit.''

 

[rvlvr]

An interesting case which I’d never heard of before. The above article mentions “a small amount of money was taken” but also notes “there was no evidence of forced entry”, which makes me think that perhaps robbery wasn’t the primary motive. Would a robber stop to waste time by covering the body with straw?

In 2015, two of the fingerprints of former shop-assistant Stuart Jenkins were found on the bag of straw which was used to cover Arthur's body. Two other fingerprints were also found, but they were unable to identify them.

Aged 41 at the time, Stuart, who worked at the shop aged 17 through a youth training scheme for six weeks in 1992 but left because "he failed to impress his employer", was arrested.

Stuart pleaded not guilty, and was eventually found not guilty on all charges by a jury at Northampton Crown Court and acquitted of Arthur's murder. Stuart has always maintained his innocence.

I can see why police had a really good look at this guy but I’m surprised the case even made it to court, I don’t see how a jury could’ve convicted him when there are unmatched prints, and who was the older guy seen later?

 

[wtiger]

someone already stood trial for this didn't they?

edited by me.......just ignore me i'm still half asleep!!!

 

[sunspun]

Stuart was a former employee of the shop... how long before the murder had he quit working there?

Would it make sense that his prints were found on the bag of straw because he used to work there?

Was the bag of straw something that had been in the basement for awhile?

 

[rvlvr]

Stuart was a former employee of the shop... how long before the murder had he quit working there?

Would it make sense that his prints were found on the bag of straw because he used to work there?

Was the bag of straw something that had been in the basement for awhile?

Sorry for the late reply, I’d saved a few things relating to this case to read over the weekend. It seems Jenkins had worked at the shop on a youth training scheme in 1992. One article suggests he left in the November “following a disagreement”, though it doesn’t say if that was with Arthur or someone else.

'˜I'm disappointed for Mr Brumhill's family', says senior police officer after not guilty verdict

Police have pledged to continue striving to solve the Northampton pet shop murder.

www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk

It seems plausible Jenkins handled the bag quite innocently. It’s difficult to know if these bags of straw were sold, or used within the shop in some way (some pet shops sell rabbits and the like, don’t they)?

In an interview he gave after his acquittal Jenkins said this:

"I never denied that I touched that bag. I strongly believe it must have been found somewhere else in the shop.

"The police never once took photos of the barn area (where the bags of straw were stored).

"This could have all been sorted out in 1993. There were just too many people at that crime scene."

'Listening to stuff you know you haven't done is hard': Northampton pet shop murder accused speaks for first time

The man accused of murdering Arthur Brumhill has spoken of his relief about being acquitted - but admitted there were moments he thought he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

www.northamptonchron.co.uk

Two other fingerprints were also found, according to the Mirror article up the page, but police were unable to identify them. I wonder how many YTS employees the shop had through their doors during 1992 and early ‘93, and were they all traced?

 

[rvlvr]

The shop was supposed to close at 5.30pm but four hours later Arthur was seen inside by a witness talking to a man described as being in his late teens. It was said it looked like the two men knew one another. So I can see why police thought that Jenkins fit the bill. The witness was apparently a motorist, though - I’m not entirely convinced they could’ve deduced all of this while driving.

Who was the older man, said to be in his 30s, seen outside the shop around 10.20pm? Did he spot the lights on inside and decide to rob it? What about the man in his 30s seen by several people acting suspiciously outside the shop the following morning? Was this the killer returning to the scene of the crime? One witness said it looked like the man had blood on his tracksuit.

Or did the killer slip in and out unnoticed by any witnesses?

In 2018 a retired detective who worked on the case said the problem was police had “too many suspects”.

Arthur Brumhill murder: 1993 investigation hindered by 'too many' suspects

Arthur Brumhill, 76, was found dead in the basement of a Northampton pet shop in 1993.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[rvlvr]

Found the episode of Crimewatch featuring Arthur’s case, the reconstruction begins at around 1m 50s:

After the reconstruction the detective mentions receiving two letters regarding the case.

 

[rvlvr]

The shop, I think, was at 272 Wellingborough Road, which is now a mini-market.

Street View of 272 Wellingborough Rd · Google Maps

272 Wellingborough Rd, Northampton NN1 4EJ, UK

maps.app.goo.gl

Does seem difficult to imagine the driver who was passing by getting more than a fleeting look at whatever was happening inside the shop, imo.

 

[Melquiades]

An interesting case which I’d never heard of before. The above article mentions “a small amount of money was taken” but also notes “there was no evidence of forced entry”, which makes me think that perhaps robbery wasn’t the primary motive. Would a robber stop to waste time by covering the body with straw?



I can see why police had a really good look at this guy but I’m surprised the case even made it to court, I don’t see how a jury could’ve convicted him when there are unmatched prints, and who was the older guy seen later?

Yeah, weird.

If they could prove the bag was ordered after he'd worked there in 1992 it's an absolutely airtight case, but if the bag had been there in 1992 the fingerprints aren't really evidence at all and if that was the key piece of evidence it's amazing that it went to trial.

 

[rvlvr]

He apparently ‘confessed’ in his teens but it doesn’t seem like the friend he supposedly spoke to took him seriously. Always a bit suspicious of ‘confessions’ from kids, who often tell tall tales.

Friend of Stuart Jenkins failed to tell police of his pal's 'admission' to killing Northampton pet shop worker as he 'didn't take it seriously'

A friend of the defendant in the Arthur Brumhill trial declined to make a statement after his pal apparently confessed because he believed the admission was said in jest.

www.northamptonchron.co.uk

Jenkins was supposed to have thrown some trainers away after the crime but police seem to think a shoe print left on the sill of an open upstairs window might’ve come from the killer, and in the CW episode (around 8m 10s in) the detective holds up a boot rather than a trainer. One of the suspicious men seen near the shop was said to be wearing what looked like fluorescent workwear - might he have been wearing work boots too?