UK UK- Janet Brown, 51, research nurse, found nude, gagged, handcuffed & bludgeoned to death, @ home, Buckinghamshire,10 April '95, *DNA, new initiative*

[Professor Moriarty]

Complete speculation, imo.
Did the various alarms in Janet's house also have flashing lights?
If not, any chance the perp was hearing impaired and the sounding alarms had little effect on him?
Maybe he regularly passed through the area enroute to a special school/workplace for the deaf?

If there was a flashing light, it would have been outside.

The road isn't one that many people would take enroute to somewhere else, although someone living on that road would do so.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

People often ask why didn't Janet hear the glass breaking. But the alarm must have sounded soon afterwards too. Janet seems to have gone to bed (early) and we know that the alarm sounded at some stage, so she must have put it on. Surely breaking a window, walking (over pressure pads?) across rooms and going up stairs would have sounded the alarm before the intruder got to Janet. I think she probably did hear something, but she only had a very short time to dial 999.

Some accounts (which often borrow from other ones) say Janet was security conscious and had fitted a "high tec" alarm system. No one says what was high tec about it. It seems just a standard 1990s system without a subscription for connection to the alarm company.

High tec or not, it seems to have worked, but without the subscription and with a reckless intruder it could not save Janet. If you pay for the subscription, the alarm company telephones you if a burglar alarm is triggered. If they can't get you, they try a keyholder you have nominated. They don't call the police straightaway. With panic alarms, the alarm companies call the house. You must answer and give a code word to show that you are not being threatened at knife/gun point. No answer or no code word and they call the police. We know that Janet's husband and the builder both called the house and it is often assumed that this was after the break in. Why didn't the intruder fear that it was the alarm company? Did it go to answerphone and he heard them?

 

[Bibitty]

Yes I am not clear why it’s assumed the intruder was in the house all that time or even for a long time just because Janet didn’t answer the phone again after the last call at 8:10 - unless she had pre-arranged a time with her husband to call (we don’t know if this was scheduled?). I don’t think we know how long the alarms were going off either. We know the car was seen at the triangle at 9:50 and alarm heard at 10:15? Janet may well have been in a deep sleep and disoriented when the intruder smashed through.

I wonder why he chose those doors to gain entry. There must have been many more easier options - but maybe he already knew the other doors and windows had internal locks? Would this indicate someone who was familiar with the house inside? Also the unusual internal courtyard where the patio doors were would have kept him hidden from passers-by. It’s quite remarkable that if he traveled there and away on foot and it was a very messy crime scene that there was very little forensic evidence from him left behind. Either he’s an incredibly accomplished and efficient operator or is currently lucky that forensic technology has not caught up with him.

 

[tes1984]

Yes I am not clear why it’s assumed the intruder was in the house all that time or even for a long time just because Janet didn’t answer the phone again after the last call at 8:10 - unless she had pre-arranged a time with her husband to call (we don’t know if this was scheduled?). I don’t think we know how long the alarms were going off either. We know the car was seen at the triangle at 9:50 and alarm heard at 10:15? Janet may well have been in a deep sleep and disoriented when the intruder smashed through.

I wonder about this too. It's been suggested that Janet may have fallen asleep, or gone to bed and decided she wasn't answering any more phone calls.

Janet was very organised though, so perhaps the police think she would have answered in case it was her husband or the builder, to discuss the urgent building work. Interestingly neither the husband or builder tries to call back again ten minutes later.

I asked the same question a while back... but what's the shortest possible time the killer could have spent at the house? Could he have arrived around 9.50pm and left at around 10.10pm, triggering the alarm himself?

 

[Cryptic]

Online, you see people saying that "the husband must have done it". This is libellous (if he is still alive). The police cleared him.

That may depend on the jurisdiction.

My general understanding is that when balancing free speech and the idea that "everyone has a right to a good name", British law tilts towards the idea of a "good name" and thus has stronger libel concepts.

Meanwhile in the USA, Freedom of Speech is contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. That placement is not a coincidence. While the concept of libel does exist in the US, US law tilts towards free speech.

The following could then apply in the US: "The police cleared him" Well, in my opinion, the police were not competent. "The husband must have done it" Yes, in my opinion, the husband did it.

Opinions do not need to be well supported, or well thought out. But.... people remain free to give them. I doubt the above would constitute libel in the US.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

That may depend on the jurisdiction.

My general understanding is that when balancing free speech and the idea that "everyone has a right to a good name", British law tilts towards the idea of a "good name" and thus has stronger libel concepts.

Meanwhile in the USA, Freedom of Speech is contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. That placement is not a coincidence. While the concept of libel does exist in the US, US law tilts towards free speech.

The following could then apply in the US: "The police cleared him" Well, in my opinion, the police were not competent. "The husband must have done it" Yes, in my opinion, the husband did it.

Opinions do not need to be well supported, or well thought out. But.... people remain free to give them. I doubt the above would constitute libel in the US.

Well the relevant jurisdiction is the UK and English law. It would absolutely be libel in the UK.

Christopher Jefferies received substantial, undisclosed damages from eight newspapers for libelous coverage following his arrest in the Joanna Yeates murder investigation. The newspapers included The Sun, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Star, Daily Record, The Scotsman, and Daily Express.

 

[Cryptic]

Well the relevant jurisdiction is the UK and English law. It would absolutely be libel in the UK.

That really illustrates the difference between US law and British law.

Another similar case that I found interesting was when a Northern Ireland publication was sued for libel after identifying somebody as being supportive of Loyalist militants.

The publication won. But.... in their defense, the publication emphasized how meticulous they were in arriving at their conclusion under British law.

Mr. X repeatedly defended loyalist militants in public statements. Mr. X repeatedly displayed hard core loyalist banners at his house (even gave exact dates and banners)- and was the only one in the neighborhood to do so (So, he cant claim social pressure forced him to display the banners). Mr X also did "D".... .

Meanwhile, here in the USA, a publication would probably need a lot less proof to state that: MR X appears (opinion) to be supportive of militant group "M".

 

[tes1984]

Crimewatch UK Stories, sorry, I thought I’d quoted your post linking to the channel when I posted about it!

This YouTube video shows footage of the house and grounds.

There's a shot of the broken patio window after it's been boarded up. It looks (to me at least) like there are muddy marks on the floor just by the door.

They also show a police officer carrying folders of what seems to be photographic paper.

 

[dotr]

re post. rbbm.

Daughter's plea for help to solve mother's murder 30 years ago

Police believe DNA evidence could help trace Janet Brown's killer after she was gagged, handcuffed and beaten to death at the family home in the village of Radnage, Buckinghamshire in 1995.

news.sky.com

"We have a DNA profile that was left at the scene. It does not belong to the family, and we believe it could be a vital piece of evidence linking the killer to the scene.

"If you have suspicions, it is very easy for our team to trace and request a DNA sample from the person you suspect, or a relative of theirs if they have perhaps passed away or have emigrated."

 

[Professor Moriarty]

It looks (to me at least) like there are muddy marks on the floor just by the door.

Is that the floor on which the intruder walked? Or is it a covering that the police put down? (A later shot appears to show a blue surface that I think might have been put down by the police.)

 

[tes1984]

Is that the floor on which the intruder walked? Or is it a covering that the police put down? (A later shot appears to show a blue surface that I think might have been put down by the police.)

I'm not sure. IIRC in one of the PB books he said that the police removed all the carpets. A piece of carpet from near Janet's body later tested negative for glass fragments.

PB thought this meant that the window wasn't broken from the outside. There's no mention of whether other sections of the carpet were tested for glass fragments though.

 

[rvlvr]

I wonder about this too. It's been suggested that Janet may have fallen asleep, or gone to bed and decided she wasn't answering any more phone calls.

Janet was very organised though, so perhaps the police think she would have answered in case it was her husband or the builder, to discuss the urgent building work. Interestingly neither the husband or builder tries to call back again ten minutes later.

I asked the same question a while back... but what's the shortest possible time the killer could have spent at the house? Could he have arrived around 9.50pm and left at around 10.10pm, triggering the alarm himself?

The CW reconstruction shows a phone next to the bed, you’d think unless she was an incredibly deep sleeper she’d have been woken by the calls. If she’d simply ignored the first call, you’d think she’d have answered the second - both calls could’ve been coming in from Roxanne for all she knew, I think she’d have picked up if she’d been in a position to do so. Personally, I feel pretty satisfied the attack began soon after she last spoke on the phone.

The big question for me is what happened when the glass was broken, assuming that was indeed the method of entry. Did she not hear it? Was she frozen in fear? Did she think setting off the internal alarm would be enough to thwart what she might’ve assumed was a robber or robbers? Was she not in a position to reach for the phone and call 999? Perhaps with the building work that was taking place she thought something had fallen or smashed and didn’t want to overreact? Did her attacker(s) sneak up the stairs or did they burst in?

Even if they find a match for the DNA I think putting some of the pieces of this puzzle together will prove to be impossible.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The CW reconstruction shows a phone next to the bed, you’d think unless she was an incredibly deep sleeper she’d have been woken by the calls. If she’d simply ignored the first call, you’d think she’d have answered the second - both calls could’ve been coming in from Roxanne for all she knew, I think she’d have picked up if she’d been in a position to do so. Personally, I feel pretty satisfied the attack began soon after she last spoke on the phone.

The big question for me is what happened when the glass was broken, assuming that was indeed the method of entry. Did she not hear it? Was she frozen in fear? Did she think setting off the internal alarm would be enough to thwart what she might’ve assumed was a robber or robbers? Was she not in a position to reach for the phone and call 999? Perhaps with the building work that was taking place she thought something had fallen or smashed and didn’t want to overreact? Did her attacker(s) sneak up the stairs or did they burst in?

Even if they find a match for the DNA I think putting some of the pieces of this puzzle together will prove to be impossible.

Yes.

We don't know where the DNA was found. If it was found in some places, such as on the handcuffs or tape maybe, an innocent explanation might be impossible. But for some places, it would only show that the person whose DNA it was had been in the house. It would not necessarily show when he had been there, still less that he had committed the crime. If it was on a downstairs table, it would not prove that the holder of the DNA was a murderer. The holder of the DNA could give an explanation for why he had been in the house sometime and it would be difficult to disprove it after all these years.

 

[dotr]

Fwiw..

Sacramento D.A. Details 'Golden State Killer's Tiny Penis in New Book

"The Golden State Killer" was brought to justice in part because of a distinctive micro-penis ... and a new book about his capture details just how small his penis is ... smaller than a pinky finger. TMZ obtained a copy of Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho's new book, "The People vs...

www.aol.com

November 11, 2025
''Dennis Rader installed home security systems while secretly breaking into homes and murdering people inside. The fact that they helped people while killing others shows how easily they hid their crimes.''

 

[Professor Moriarty]

There have recently appeared on Facebook awful videos about this case, some made by Americans, that are full of mistakes. These have Janet living in Edinburgh or Bedford. They have pictures of other people, including the late comedienne Janet Brown.

However, I came across what seems to be a US video that is worth watching. I found it on Facebook. It seems to be US, but it draws heavily on Paul Britton's book. It considers the cases of Carolanne Jackson and Janet Brown. It seems very accurate and gives some prominence to some points made in this thread already. These include the fact that, In the case of Janet Brown, there was more broken glass from the patio door outside the house than inside the house. It also says that if the intruder had broken in by breaking glass, there should have been fragments of glass picked up by his shoes and distributed around the house: there weren't.

It also quotes Paul Britton as suggesting that the intruder brought a change of clothes and changed into them after washing blood off himself, maybe after a shower. (If he had done this, wouldn't he have run the risk of shedding DNA while getting undressed, dried and dressed again? Would he have brought his own towel?)

Further, it says Paul Britton thinks the killer might have set off the internal alarm only when he broke the patio window after the attack, to make it look like a burglary. (If the alarm had been set, wouldn't it have been triggered already by pressure pads downstairs?) It suggests that the intruder also set off the panic alarm only when leaving, again to cause confusion and disguise the timing of his entry.

The original Crimewatch item seemed to accept that entry w as through the patio door, but that could have been an assumption at an early stage and the police can't get into different theories in such items. The police officer said that the killer must have been covered in blood. Again, that might be incorrect if the killer cleaned up or showered and changed his clothes.

If the killer did not enter through the patio door, how did he get in? Did he just open a door with a key? Estate agents must have had keys. Possibly Janet had given a key to a tradesman so he could do some work inside while she was at work. Keys can be copied. Years ago, when looking at houses, estate agents gave me the keys to look at houses on my own. They only did this for properties that were empty and I don't suppose they would have done that with occupied houses. However, I thought at the time that this was lax, as I could have copied the keys and entered the houses after new buyers had moved in, unless they changed the locks. Police probably looked into this, but if Janet lent a key to someone they might not find that out.

 

[tes1984]

Very good suggestion that the perp was searching the house for Roxanne rather than for money or valuables, hadn’t considered that.

The killer left watered down blood on the light switches, which strongly suggests that he checked the house after the murder. If he was looking for Roxanne, then wouldn't he have checked the house before the murder/as soon as he had Janet restrained?

And if he has had a shower, then why the watered down blood? Does he take a shower (even though he thinks there might be someone else in the house) and then get dressed and put his gloves back on to search upstairs?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The killer left watered down blood on the light switches, which strongly suggests that he checked the house after the murder. If he was looking for Roxanne, then wouldn't he have checked the house before the murder/as soon as he had Janet restrained?

And if he has had a shower, then why the watered down blood? Does he take a shower (even though he thinks there might be someone else in the house) and then get dressed and put his gloves back on to search upstairs?

I suppose he might have washed blood off his gloved hands (but not got it all off), searched the house (leaving watered down blood on the light switches), then had a shower.

But DNA evidence had been in use for some time and many people were aware of it. Wouldn't he have needed to keep his gloves on in a shower, if he had one? Otherwise, although he could wipe fingerprints off the taps, shower head etc, but he would risk leaving DNA in the area of the shower. Just getting undressed could shed DNA (body hair etc). He could have got undressed in the shower, so that he could rinse it away, but he would have needed to be very careful.

However, everything about this case is mysterious and difficult to understand. Irrespective of whether alarms were sounding, why hang around? The house had no near neighbours, but how did the intruder know whether Roxanne might turn up, or the son, returning from university for the Easter holidays or anybody else? If the external alarm sounded while he was there, someone might have come to the door seen Janet through it, just as the builder did in the morning (although only if a light was on inside, as it was dark by then).

I wonder if the police have established any clues after all these years or if they are just relying on appeals and the possibility that, one day, the killer will have his DNA taken, a possibility that must reduce each year, as offending tends to reduce with age.

 

[rvlvr]

The killer left watered down blood on the light switches, which strongly suggests that he checked the house after the murder. If he was looking for Roxanne, then wouldn't he have checked the house before the murder/as soon as he had Janet restrained?

And if he has had a shower, then why the watered down blood? Does he take a shower (even though he thinks there might be someone else in the house) and then get dressed and put his gloves back on to search upstairs?

Or did he go around turning off the lights before leaving? I can’t remember if it’s ever been said if the lights were on or off inside the house when Janet was found the following morning? I don’t think it would’ve been dark when the attack was meant to have started (8-8.30ish?) but it likely would’ve been quite gloomy inside the house without lights on? I think on CW the detective suggested the killer may have brought a torch with them? If the killer escaped on foot through the paths in the woods at the back of the property that would’ve been handy to have.

 

[rvlvr]

If the killer did indeed hang around that suggests to me they must’ve been very confident that they weren’t going to be disturbed. Or, incredibly stupid and/or brazen! I’m increasingly taken with the staging theory but even then it doesn’t quite make sense to me - if they cut through the outer pane of glass first from the outside, then why go back inside the house to smash the inner pane outwards? Perhaps they removed the outer pane, went back inside for a final clean up and to collect their things, then smashed the inner pane and made their escape through the fully broken window?

 

[SteveH]

Compare to the case of Janice and Connie Sheridan:

"A FORMER door-to-door salesman has been given two life sentences for the brutal murders of a dog breeder and her elderly mother.

Kevin Cotterell (33), of Pentney, Norfolk, pleaded guilty to stabbing to death 45-year-old Janice Sheridan and Connie Sheridan (79) at the isolated cottage they shared in Upwell, Norfolk, in January 1999.

Cotterell had denied the murders since being arrested in April last year, but changed his plea at the last minute as his trial was due to begin at Norwich Crown Court.

The women's bodies were found by neighbours on Sunday January 10, 1999, after Janice failed to appear at the kennels where she worked part time in Upwell.

Detectives believe that the bodies had lain in the cottage for several days. More than 20 whippets owned by Janice were also in the house.

They found Connie lying on a sofa with eight separate stab wounds to her chest, one to her stomach and one to her forearm.

Janice had been stabbed once in the back, twice in the neck and six times in the chest.

Though she had not been indecently assaulted, her breasts were exposed, her trousers removed and her pants were found inside out and rolled down."

Salesman gets life for murder of women

A FORMER door-to-door salesman has been given two life sentences for the brutal murders of a dog breeder and her elderly mother.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

The crime scene showed Cotterell had been methodical rather than chaotic, it all seemed planned, and it was believed he had spent many hours in the house. Our old friend David Wilson says that the killer may have actually worn a condom at the scene of the crime given that there was no trace of semen found as Janice had been staged in a sexual pose. It later became clear that Cotterell had visited the Sheridans the previous year to sell them double glazing. Wilson quips "He moved from double glazing to double murder". He knew the house and knew that it was isolated from other properties. He was familiar to the women. See Wilson's Murder at Home (pp 58-6)3.

Of course in the Brown case the house was also so remote that no-one was bothered by the alarm. but did the killer know about her daughter? Was she the planned target? Was there any sexual motive - beating someone can itself give sexual thrills to a sadist? Had he planned to rape/assault the daughter but not the mother? Why was Janet naked? Did she let the killer in (like the Sheridans) and then he later staged the broken window to deflect attention away from the fact that she knew him well enough to allow him to cross the threshold?

A Crimewatch reconstruction of the Sheridan case: