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

[Konstantin]

Janet's husband thought he recalled seeing the handcuffs in the past, but couldn't be sure.

Yes it stands out because it is odd. I suppose she could have got them at a hen do or some girls' night out but she does not seem the type or age group to be going on those.

My thought when I read it was that the husband was a bit embarrassed about it so hedged it behind he "thought he recalled" seeing them -- that does the job of giving the information that the handcuffs might have been ones already in the house and not brought by the killer and distancing himself from them a bit. Not really an open topic of discussion in the circles he moved in I guess.

If they were Janet's then surely, unless she was planning to use them, they would be hidden somewhere in a box or at the very back of some little used drawer given she had a teenage daughter who may have been curious etc.

 

[tes1984]

IIRC the potential sighting of Janet driving was after she had spoken to Roxanne.

Cutting the glass as a cover up does seem a bit elaborate, but the glass cutting doesn't really make much sense as something done pre crime either. We know that the killer spent a fairly long time in the house. Potentially he could even have staged things whilst Janet was restrained, but still alive.

 

[tes1984]

I think someone would have come forward if the handcuffs were an innocent gift from a hen do or similar event.

If the handcuffs were Janet's then maybe she kept them in her dressing room with her jewellery. Either Janet put the jewellery on herself (which suggests she was expecting company) or someone forced/persuaded/convinced her to wear it.

PB thought that the killer made Janet pose in the jewellery. Perhaps the killer found the handcuffs when he was going through her jewellery boxes.

 

[Konstantin]

PB thought that the killer made Janet pose in the jewellery. Perhaps the killer found the handcuffs when he was going through her jewellery boxes.

Could be yes, but then that suggests that before he found them Janet wasn't restrained. So how did he stop her from using her hands etc as he went through her jewellery? None of it was taken and what burglar makes someone put jewellery on?

So yes, maybe she put the jewellery on for him if she knew him and was expecting him.

It makes zero sense to me that this was a burglary attempt.

It hasn't been explained why she might have driven away from her home at the time she did. But she didn't know that Roxanne was going to be out until later that day, so perhaps that sparked a series of events.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Could be yes, but then that suggests that before he found them Janet wasn't restrained. So how did he stop her from using her hands etc as he went through her jewellery? None of it was taken and what burglar makes someone put jewellery on?

So yes, maybe she put the jewellery on for him if she knew him and was expecting him.

It makes zero sense to me that this was a burglary attempt.

It hasn't been explained why she might have driven away from her home at the time she did. But she didn't know that Roxanne was going to be out until later that day, so perhaps that sparked a series of events.

The police might well have learnt things since the Crimewatch video and initial accounts and appeals. They might be keeping quiet about what they have learnt.

I think it likely that if they had suspicions about BDSM or an affair (but no more than suspicions) they would not go public about them and upset the family. They must have learnt some things by now and they received many phone calls. It would be interesting to know what they know, but we will probably never find out.

 

[tes1984]

Could be yes, but then that suggests that before he found them Janet wasn't restrained. So how did he stop her from using her hands etc as he went through her jewellery?

At some point Janet's ankles were bound with tape. Perhaps the killer thought that was enough to make sure she didn't go anywhere.

Janet might also have been completely frozen in fear. The killer also seems to have punched her, which would have added to her shock and terror.

 

[tes1984]

The police might well have learnt things since the Crimewatch video and initial accounts and appeals. They might be keeping quiet about what they have learnt.

There don't seem to have been any major new revelations in the last couple of police appeals though, but no doubt they'll be holding certain information back.

They announced the DNA evidence in 2015, but I don't think they've revealed where and how they found the DNA.

 

[tes1984]

Question:

In one interview, the police said that the murderer "must have told someone" that he did this. (I have seen them say this in other cases too.)

Do you think this is true? If so, it would mean that someone has carried the burden of knowing this all these years.

Perhaps the police are also referring to the two phone calls they received from a man after one of the appeals.

They seem to have taken these calls very seriously, so presumably they think it was either the killer who called in, or an accomplice, or someone he had confided in.

 

[rvlvr]

It’s a risk inviting someone to your house because your teenage daughter has gone out for the night, isn’t it. What if R had returned home unannounced? A fall out with friends, becoming unwell, just a general change of plans, etc. And this in the days before a simple text from a mobile could be sent, giving a heads up.

Unless you could innocently explain away the presence of this someone in your home (though probably not your bed), then imo it’s not a risk most people would take. But of course, that doesn’t mean J didn’t know her killer, she may well have let them in and the scene was later staged - as has been noted already, the killer likely had the time to do this. Perhaps it was even part of the thrill - if it was an act designed to obfuscate then it certainly succeeded.

I’m not sure on the CJ murder link. That does sound more like a robbery to me, expensive items were missing and her home had been ransacked, and the safe was locked IIRC, suggesting to me she either refused to give up its contents, or that the killer ‘accidentally’ rendered her incapable of doing so.

I think there was a controlling, sexual aspect to J’s murder. Would they - likely not knowing than R was out - have been happy to control two women? That strikes me as bold but obviously not unheard of. It seems the killer came equipped to do just that, but imo if R had been home then one of the women would’ve been killed early on, with the other becoming the focus.

The only saving grace is the DNA. At least there’s something to cling on to here.

 

[tes1984]

The DNA is definitely the potential saving grace, but there were also four unaccounted for fingerprints found in Janet's house.

In the recent Louise Dunne case, they caught the perp via DNA, but missed two chances to match his prints a lot earlier.

 

[tes1984]

What if it's two perps?

Drug addicts looking for a house to burgle.

They haven't really done it before, so don't know what they're doing. They have some equipment like tape, crowbars, and they've got hold of a glass cutter.

One of them is completely submissive to the other. He waits around outside until he's told what to do.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

What if it's two perps?

Drug addicts looking for a house to burgle.

They haven't really done it before, so don't know what they're doing. They have some equipment like tape, crowbars, and they've got hold of a glass cutter.

One of them is completely submissive to the other. He waits around outside until he's told what to do.

The one waiting outside would have had a long wait.

Where did you learn about the finger prints please?

 

[forensicswannabe]

The brutality and amount of time spent in the home of the offender to me doesn't make me think this is someone Janet was having an affair with and broke it off or whatever and he got angry and killed her this murder seems more sadistic and planned to me like someone who got pleasure out of making Janet suffer I think we are most likely looking at a sexual sadist imo.

 

[tes1984]

The one waiting outside would have had a long wait.

Where did you learn about the finger prints please?

The fingerprints are from the PB book.

PB mentioned the possibility of it being two very young attackers, but thought it was probably one older offender.

There have been some rapist burglars who had accomplices. Kenny Wells refused to identify his accomplice.

John McGlynn also refused to identify his accomplice. His attack on an old lady in 1987 has some similarities to the murder of Janet, particularly the handcuffing of the victim's wrists and binding of the ankles.

McGlynn's DNA and fingerprints clearly don't match the forensics from Janet's house though.

 

[tes1984]

The brutality and amount of time spent in the home of the offender to me doesn't make me think this is someone Janet was having an affair with and broke it off or whatever and he got angry and killed her this murder seems more sadistic and planned to me like someone who got pleasure out of making Janet suffer I think we are most likely looking at a sexual sadist imo.

This seems to be the most likely scenario IMO. I'm throwing the other possibilities out there just in case something sticks.

 

[tes1984]

The police have acknowledged that in this case none of the theories quite fit.

The lover theory is that Janet finds out she has the house to herself, drives to a phone box and tells her lover to come round, but not park too near the house.

She tells others she is having an early night, but instead has a shower and puts on her jewellery, ready for her lover. She greets him wearing just her dressing gown.

He arrives and has a shower before the sex or bondage starts. The police don't find any blood when they take the plumbing apart, because the shower was taken before the murder. Janet gives him a man's dressing gown to wear after he gets out of the shower. He throws it down when he joins Janet on the bed, and forgets to take it with him when he leaves the scene.

 

[tes1984]

There are obviously a lot of problems with the lover theory.

He would not only have to flip and turn into a sexual sadist, but also stage an overly elaborate break in after the murder, and just happen to have a glass cutter in his car.

 

[dotr]

Wondering how visible Janet's murdered body would be for anyone looking through the window?

The lack of clothing, the covered mouth, the handcuffs, the jewelry, almost like staging for a steamy cover for some sex n' gore type magazine.
Did the perp aim to replicate one he had particularly fancied? speculation.

 

[tes1984]

Wondering how visible Janet's murdered body would be for anyone looking through the window?

The lack of clothing, the covered mouth, the handcuffs, the jewelry, almost like staging for a steamy cover for some sex n' gore type magazine.
Did the perp aim to replicate one he had particularly fancied? speculation.

Good thinking about the gore type magazines.

I think the builder saw Janet's body through the window. The killer clearly made no attempt to move Janet's body to somewhere less visible.

He doesn't care about buying himself more time by hiding the body. Perhaps he wants to show off what he's done. Maybe he knows the builders will be there in the morning and see the smashed glass anyway.

 

[tes1984]

I was wondering about the watered down blood found on several light switches.

Presumably he's wearing gloves, but how does he wash/rinse/clean them without leaving blood traces for the police to find when they take apart the plumbing system?