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

[Diddian]

Also if you think about the timings,

Yes I'm starting to think the same thing and that the actual break in/attack happened between 10.15pm-10.30pm instead.

This article has some interesting info -

Police say their “working hypothesis” is that Oxford University research nurse Janet died in a burglary which went wrong.
But they are baffled over why the break-in happened when Janet was still up with the lights on in the house and two cars parked in the driveway.They believe the killer struck between 8.15pm and 10.15pm on the night Janet was murdered - seemingly breaking in by using a glass cutting wheel to make a man-sized hole in the patio doors.
Janet was naked, getting ready for bed and had neatly folded her clothes when she was confronted by her killer in the master bedroom.
A set of metal handcuffs was used to restrain her and masking tape was bound round her nose and mouth.

Cops reveal DNA breakthrough in murder of mum-of-3 nurse 25 years ago

POLICE have revealed a new DNA breakthrough which could solve the murder of nurse Janet Brown who was battered to death 25 years ago. Detectives are using familial DNA to search for a relative with…

www.thesun.co.uk

It would be interesting to know whether JB’s husband customarily called each evening and typically at 8:30, as if that is the case then I’d expect that JB would have taken that call. So, that would suggest JB had been disabled before that call came in.

 

[LadyL]

Somewhere I got the idea that the killer:
1. cut a man-sized hole through the outer pane of one panel
2. then they smashed an 'adjacent' panel.

I see some glass at the bottom of that middle pane, but I'm not sure it's smashed thru both panes...I think that might be the cut, outer pane with the inner pane still intact.

Here's a photo of what I expect to see when both panes are smashed:

View attachment 580947

However, perhaps I am wrong, and that middle pane was smashed, and the info about the 'adjacent' panel is wrong

or

perhaps by the time that photo was taken, the 'adjacent' smashed panel had been removed and replaced with a new one....

oh yes I remember that from somewhere too - maybe it was a theory in that book

ETA: Dotr posted the source thanks Dotr

 

[LadyL]

The house had been marketed for sale for over a year, so perhaps the killer knew of the layout, without actually having been in the house or courtyard.

yes that could be

 

[TheRockingRev]

A very intriguing case for sure - and one I've only just heard of. A few points from me (excuse me if they have already been noted - I rushed a little through the posts)

- Why make it look like a burglary to begin with, but then not take anything to carry on the ruse?
- Although perhaps shielded from neighbours/random passers-by - why take the risk of breaking the window and alerting Janet, when they could've gone to the front door and potentially just forced their way in? Was there a chain on the door? Had the killer been to the house before and noticed it?
- It's been said it may have been a crowbar that was used - why not force a door? The patio door could've possibly been forced - or was it that the killer knew this was a dead spot for noise, and forcing another door on the property may have been heard?
- Did Janet sleep in the nude? If not did he killer strip her / make her strip? The jewellery makes you think she wasn't in the shower.
- Did she wear earplugs? It would have accounted to her not hearing so much - could the killer have taken them if so?
- How loud was the alarm? It's said that the neighbours could hear it, if it was that loud and the killer was moving around in the house, and even showering, then they would have been confident that a police car wouldn't turn up and they wouldn't hear it.
- This makes me think the killer was aware that the alarm was something that wouldn't be responded to - had the killer known about this by something that had been said, possibly by visiting the house as potential buyer?
- If we take it that the crime took place around 8:10ish when the calls weren't answered, that wasn't too long after sunset in the UK at that time. The killer wouldn't have had full concealment of complete darkness (although in a remote location this wasn't so much of a problem, but they may have been spotted by someone in the house)

IMO it wasn't a burglary, despite the sheer effort of going through the window. What is quite shocking is that despite the alarm they weren't afraid of being caught due to their time in the house. I wonder if the police looked at the BDSM community? Handcuffs, tape, binding around the body and head seems to point towards someone who may have been involved in that lifestyle.

 

[Oakie]

Sounds like a paid hit to me. Who would be most likely to have a motive?

 

[TheRockingRev]

Sounds like a paid hit to me. Who would be most likely to have a motive?

Highly unlikely IMO. Professional hits in the UK aren't actually that common outside of gangland. It's not that easy to set something like that up here for regular people.
Also if it was, this was highly bodged - why the tape, the jewellery, being in a house with an alarm ringing for possibly 2 hours? Guns aren't that easy to come by in the country, but if it was a paid hit then it would've been by someone who was involved in that sort of activity. They would more than likely have access to firearms (even if it was a shotgun) so why not a shooting at the front door or at the front of the house? Hell, even a stabbing at the front door.
The torture and prolonged agony they put her through was something the killer had to experience as part of it - and they weren't afraid to get caught by hanging around the house with an alarm ringing. It wasn't IMO just a murder for money - that sort of killer would've got in and out.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Can anyone help me with something regarding the alarm please - the alarm in the house I'm guessing was triggered by an internal sensor, not linked to the windows/doors. I would've thought that the alarm would've sounded earlier when the killer was trying to break in if that was the case, and alerted Janet sooner. I'm guessing the alarm sounded and the killer rushed the 30 seconds it has been stated to reach her.

This was a big house - so just a thought - what if the killer was already concealed in the house? If he heard the call at 8:10 (IIRC) from Roxanne's friend and it was mentioned in that call that she wasn't there and wouldn't be back that night, that would've given the killer the greenlight to emerge. Certainly explains why the calls not long after were ignored. It would explain the alarm triggering (if it was an internal sensor) and the speed at which he reached Janet. Even if he had got through the window by smashing it, the noise and subsequent getting through the hole would've given her time to pick up the phone (trying breaking a window - it doesn't go easy. You have to smash out bits that may cut you as you get in, or squeeze through. All valuable seconds lost for someone to dial 999 - apparently there was a phone upstairs) But if he was in the house already, then he could've got to her before she realised why the alarm sounded. As she heard footsteps, seen the killer this could be when the panic alarm was pressed.

So why the broken window? What if this was done to make it look like a burglary - or more perhaps to hide the fact that the killer had somehow access to the house already to hide. e.g. someone who had a key or could get access to a key?

 

[tes1984]

If it's a hitman, then he's also a sexual sadist. If it's a burglar, he's a sexual sadist and also a terrible actual burglar.

The police suggested Janet may not have heard the glass breaking, because she had the television on in her bedroom.

This still doesn't explain why the offender chooses such a bizarre way to enter the property in the first place. If he stages the break in after the murder, then things get even weirder still (if that's possible).

 

[tes1984]

I've been trying to work out the alarm stuff too. There were two alarm systems. I think one was triggered by motion sensors, and the other by key turn panic alarms.

One system was designed to cut out after 20 minutes. I think the other was designed to ring continually until switch off or the battery ran out. I'm not sure which of the alarms was which though, or if they were definitely both triggered.

The police have one or two major facts they are withholding, so perhaps they know more about the timings, and when the alarm/alarms were actually triggered, then they have announced in public.

 

[tes1984]

Janet was known to sleep in the nude. In his book, Paul Britton wonders how the police knew this, but never actually explains the reason. It's also not explained where Janet's clothes and underwear etc were found.

After the murder, Janet's two daughters went to the house to help the police. They were able to confirm that the TV and video being left unplugged was not something the family did. They also said nothing was missing, but they were obviously completely traumatised, and possibly would have been in no state to know if the killer had taken small items (underwear, minor jewellery, shoes etc) as souvenirs.

Who would know and remember every pair of shoes or earrings their mother owned at the best of times, let alone in these circumstances?

 

[TheRockingRev]

I've been trying to work out the alarm stuff too. There were two alarm systems. I think one was triggered by motion sensors, and the other by key turn panic alarms.

One system was designed to cut out after 20 minutes. I think the other was designed to ring continually until switch off or the battery ran out. I'm not sure which of the alarms was which though, or if they were definitely both triggered.

The police have one or two major facts they are withholding, so perhaps they know more about the timings, and when the alarm/alarms were actually triggered, then they have announced in public.

Fully agree - you're right the alarms ringing haven't really been given a clear time frame.

From, I think, the Guardian: About 10 months after the killing, police received two anonymous answerphone messages from a male caller that seemed significant. Investigators said at the time it was unlikely the calls were hoaxes and the tone and content suggested the caller believed the information was of importance.

Could it be that this referenced something about the alarms? With no information leaked about quite a substantial part of the case, then there would be no hoaxers and the only people who would know are the police and someone linked to the crime.

If it was a motion sensor then it could be they were hiding in the house. I would've though smashing through double glazing would be a long and noisy job (as a youngster a friend and I broke though some glass at an abandoned building- it wasn't as easy as it looks on TV. It wasn't even double-glazed. Btw, the building is no more, so hopefully I won't end up as a thread on here!

 

[dotr]

Considering that Janet had made a fuss in the neighbourhood about home safety, it is certainly ironic that she is the one whose house had several alarms, and yet is 'broken into', not unlike poor Janet. imo.

Murder of Janet Brown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

''Following a spate of local burglaries, Janet Brown had formed the local Neighbourhood Watch scheme. She was known to be security-conscious and had installed a panic alarm in the house.''

 

[tes1984]

IIRC there were burglaries in the region where offenders tricked their way into properties by posing as water board officials. The victims were lone women, but considerably older than Janet.

I don't think the police have discussed how much cash Janet usually kept at home. No mention of there being a safe either. I don't think they say if the killer left any cash behind. Also no mention of how much money Janet had withdrawn lately from her bank account, or if the builders were being paid by cash or cheque.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Janet was known to sleep in the nude. In his book, Paul Britton wonders how the police knew this, but never actually explains the reason. It's also not explained where Janet's clothes and underwear etc were found.

After the murder, Janet's two daughters went to the house to help the police. They were able to confirm that the TV and video being left unplugged was not something the family did. They also said nothing was missing, but they were obviously completely traumatised, and possibly would have been in no state to know if the killer had taken small items (underwear, minor jewellery, shoes etc) as souvenirs.

Who would know and remember every pair of shoes or earrings their mother owned at the best of times, let alone in these circumstances?

More and more mysterious. It certainly explains how she was found in that case. It could point towards someone being in the house IMO as there would've been very scant time between the killer getting to her and the panic alarm being pressed. In that time you would I imagine think less of perhaps getting to a phone than putting something on, even a dressing gown. The vulnerability of being naked would I think overrule anything else. If there was someone breaking in from the outside I would think you would throw something on before you got up to investigate IMO.

I can imagine that a deviant like this would've taken a a small souvenir, (underwear etc. like you say) that wouldn't have aroused notice, but again it rules out a burglary as you would think they would take a lot of jewellery that would be easily noticed.

The TV and video are interesting too. Did the killer think to take them to make it look like a burglary but decided against it as back in 1995 the TV was probably too big to take, or did they have no intention of doing so but the unplugging was just a weak attempt to carry on the ruse of a burglary.

 

[dotr]

Again wondering if the murder was recorded in some way, maybe requiring extra electrical outlets to plug into, so tv/video player was unplugged? speculation.

Janet Brown: Bound and Brutalized in her own home

A mysterious woman meets a mysterious end.

mysteryconfidential.medium.com

''NOTHING FROM THE HOUSE WAS STOLEN but it was noted that the television and video player were unplugged (suggesting an attempt at removal). This was noticed by the Brown children. However this may be an intentional mislead.''

Mr and Mrs. Brown

 

[tes1984]

Most of the items the killer brings with him could be carried in a coat or jacket. I'm not sure how big the glass cutter was though.

I suspect the killer had some kind of bag with him, but doubt he would want to escape on foot with the additional weight of a TV or video. I think unplugging the devices was staging, but interestingly there's no mention of diluted blood on the TV pr video leads (like there was on several light switches).

 

[TheRockingRev]

Again wondering if the murder was recorded in some way, maybe requiring extra electrical outlets to plug into, so tv/video player was unplugged? speculation.

Janet Brown: Bound and Brutalized in her own home

A mysterious woman meets a mysterious end.

mysteryconfidential.medium.com

''NOTHING FROM THE HOUSE WAS STOLEN but it was noted that the television and video player were unplugged (suggesting an attempt at removal). This was noticed by the Brown children. However this may be an intentional mislead.''
View attachment 581143
Mr and Mrs. Brown

IMO probably not. By 1995 small handheld camcorders were the norm and came with batteries. There wouldn't be any need to plug a recording device in.

 

[tes1984]

Again wondering if the murder was recorded in some way, maybe requiring extra electrical outlets to plug into, so tv/video player was unplugged? speculation

Interesting idea. IIRC Paul Britton wondered if the killer took photographs of Janet, because someone drew the curtains in Janet's bedroom. She didn't ever draw the curtains in her bedroom. Perhaps the killer was worried about someone seeing a camera flash go off?

 

[TheRockingRev]

Interesting idea. IIRC Paul Britton wondered if the killer took photographs of Janet, because someone drew the curtains in Janet's bedroom. She didn't ever draw the curtains in her bedroom. Perhaps the killer was worried about someone seeing a camera flash go off?

Or would catch themselves in a reflection of the window if they took photos.
I would certainly go with the theory of photos (or even filmed - but not with a device to be plugged in). The killer clearly went to great lengths to pose and 'dress' her - was this was for horrific recorded keepsakes?

 

[TheRockingRev]

The link above raises a few questions. The panic alarms in the house - what did they do? It sounds like the type you get in offices etc. where you have to press 2 buttons at the same time (to avoid being accidentally pressed) and are linked to the police. I don't quite understand what purpose they would have in the house if they could only be heard within the building itself. The external alarm I get, but this internal one makes no sense to me.
Although there are some inconsistencies in the above piece (the builder ringing at 8:20 instead of 9 that night) it does say that one of the alarms was by the front door. Did the killer know this and therefore that's why they didn't just use this method of entry.

I raised a point earlier, JMO, that the killer could've been in the house already. Was he planning on killing both Janet and Roxanne - hence the amount of tape and handcuffs he had? He may have been waiting for them to fall asleep before making his way up the stairs (would Janet have set the alarm inside had she not been alone?). If, as I speculated, he overheard the telephone call that Janet was on her own perhaps that's why he struck then. It was quite early and to go through the glass door and get to the house would've seen them have to get there and start work before sunset which was likely around 7:45ish.

It's the alarms which are puzzling me - what exactly did the panic alarm do? For people who were obviously concerned about security with so much of it, it seems to me that it was practically useless.

Was this someone they knew who perhaps also knew how inefficient it was? It certainly would explain why they were at no rush to leaved the house.