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

[Hustling01]

Could it be revenge? Someone liked the daughter and janet said no and that person took revenge? One of the builders sons? School friend etc

 

[Hustling01]

He could have moved abroad at some point but that's probably unlikely.
Hard to see him not committing more crimes if he had the chance though.

depends on his motivation tho. If she was killed for a reason he wouldnt have a reason to go on to kill again

 

[tes1984]

Could it be revenge? Someone liked the daughter and janet said no and that person took revenge? One of the builders sons? School friend etc

IMO the fairly isolated location suggests an older offender.

I also suspect that someone had targeted the Browns for a while.

 

[tes1984]

depends on his motivation tho. If she was killed for a reason he wouldnt have a reason to go on to kill again

I can't see this as a contract killing. Paul Britton thought this was a sexually motivated murder and that the offender would probably re-offend.

 

[tes1984]

What time was the alarm activated?

Perhaps 8.20pm as the killer enters the property, or 10pm as he leaves?

Any ideas?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The killer might have committed further crimes, but just not left his DNA or fingerprints there. There is a possibility he killed Carolanne Jackson, for example.

It may be that, when he confronted Janet, the killer asked where Roxanne was. Janet might have told him that Roxanne was spending the night elsewhere, hoping that he would then leave, disappointed.

Certainly, he was a risk taker, staying in the house for so long and with the alarm going off. There is a suggestion that he used the shower, although on Crimewatch the detective said he would have had a lot of blood on him afterwards.

As someone interested in cars, if I were to see a car parked near where a serious crime occurred, I would be able to give the police the make and model, unless it was parked in darkness. A woman saw "a car" parked nearby that evening, but I don't think she was able to give details.

 

[HollyHunter9]

DO YOU KNOW THE COOL KILLER WHO BATTERED JANET TO DEATH? - Free Online Library

This article says only four or five people knew Roxanne would be away that night. Fairly easy for police to ask them for alibis and check them out.

Interesting sentence from this article -

'She folded her clothes neatly and let her white towelling dressing gown drop on to the floor next to the bed.'

Why would you fold your clothes but drop your dressing gown on floor? Most people would hang it up on the back of the door or drape it over a chair before getting into bed.

I think ....

1. She was either abushed as she was removing it for bed but this seems unlikely as it would have meant she didnt hear the intruder smash through the glass doors downstairs as she was then getting into bed seemingly unaware.

2. She heard the intruder breaking in, jumped out of bed and was in the process of putting her dressing gown on but the killer reached her before she could and it was dropped to the floor in the scuffle.

3. She had the dressing gown on (either ready to then get into bed or heard the intruder and got up and put it on) and the intruder forced her to remove it before they handcuffed her.

There was no evidence of sexual assault but IMO this is very much a sexually motivated crime. The killer wanted to dominate, humiliate and scare janet and the robe on the floor I believe is evidence of this.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I agree. I have read that Janet Brown used to sleep naked, but I think few women would just drop their dressing gown on the floor.

It's possible she put it there, for when she had to get up and she didn't want to walk across the room naked. (Her children might enter the room-I know she was alone that night, but people form habits.) But wouldn't she put it on a nearby chair or something, rather than on the floor? To say that she let it drop on the floor is presuming a lot.

It is a mystery whether or not she heard the glass being broken and, if so, why she didn't dial 999 straight away. (The reconstruction seems to show that there was a phone in the bedroom.)

I agree that it was a sexual thing. What other reason for the intrusion can there be, given that nothing was stolen and it was an unlikely time for a burglary? (I think that the intruder expected that Roxanne would be there too.) Who knows what the intruder forced Janet Brown to do? Quite possibly he intended to murder his victim(s), either to prevent their identifying him to the police or as part of his fantasy or whatever else was going through his mind.

This case plays on my mind. I know the Chilterns well and have driven down the narrow road where Janet Brown lived.

 

[HollyHunter9]

I agree. I have read that Janet Brown used to sleep naked, but I think few women would just drop their dressing gown on the floor.

It's possible she put it there, for when she had to get up and she didn't want to walk across the room naked. (Her children might enter the room-I know she was alone that night, but people form habits.) But wouldn't she put it on a nearby chair or something, rather than on the floor? To say that she let it drop on the floor is presuming a lot.

It is a mystery whether or not she heard the glass being broken and, if so, why she didn't dial 999 straight away. (The reconstruction seems to show that there was a phone in the bedroom.)

I agree that it was a sexual thing. What other reason for the intrusion can there be, given that nothing was stolen and it was an unlikely time for a burglary? (I think that the intruder expected that Roxanne would be there too.) Who knows what the intruder forced Janet Brown to do? Quite possibly he intended to murder his victim(s), either to prevent their identifying him to the police or as part of his fantasy or whatever else was going through his mind.

This case plays on my mind. I know the Chilterns well and have driven down the narrow road where Janet Brown lived.

Yes i think the killer had been watching janet and roxanne for quite some time, likely had some knowledge of the layout of the house (he brought a glass cutter yet you cannot see the glass patio doors externally from the house as they are in an enclosed courtyard around the back, i did post a photo further upthread).

Another thing i thought about, was roxanne had passed her driving test (or her friend had) and that was the reason for celebrating that night out with her friends but I'm wondering if she told the driving instructor her plans? Would the driving instructor therefore know Janet was alone that night? Also the driving instructors car might not look out of place parked up the road if roxanne had been having lessons over the last few months.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Yes i think the killer had been watching janet and roxanne for quite some time, likely had some knowledge of the layout of the house (he brought a glass cutter yet you cannot see the glass patio doors externally from the house as they are in an enclosed courtyard around the back, i did post a photo further upthread).

Another thing i thought about, was roxanne had passed her driving test (or her friend had) and that was the reason for celebrating that night out with her friends but I'm wondering if she told the driving instructor her plans? Would the driving instructor therefore know Janet was alone that night? Also the driving instructors car might not look out of place parked up the road if roxanne had been having lessons over the last few months.

It was Roxanne's friend who had just passed her test. Roxanne's driving lesson was in the morning. I think she didn't know about the sleepover until later in the day.

I agree that the murderer probably knew a certain amount about Janet and Roxanne. I also agree that, one way or another, he knew a certain amount about the house. Many houses have patio doors at the rear and I think there were some other patio type windows at the rear of the house that could be cut. But the courtyard, where he did cut the glass, could not be seen from either the front or the rear. He would be unlikely to be seen by anyone other than someone in the room on the other side of the glass. He might have only discovered that courtyard on the day he broke in, but I think he more likely already knew about it. On a day when Janet was at work and Roxanne was at school he would have been able to inspect the rear of the house at leisure. The estate agent might have produced leaflets showing the layout of the house. Even without being on a list of people who had been shown around the house, the intruder could have seen a leaflet about the house, without his details being recorded by the estate agent.

 

[tes1984]

He might have only discovered that courtyard on the day he broke in, but I think he more likely already knew about it. On a day when Janet was at work and Roxanne was at school he would have been able to inspect the rear of the house at leisure.

I tend to agree that he knew about the courtyard.

What sort of burglar strikes at 8 or 9pm on a Monday? Why not 9pm on a Friday/Saturday night when the house will be more likely to be empty?

Why bring a glass cutter, but then target a double glazed window? Does he think the other windows are linked to the alarms? If so, then why is he so blase when the alarms are actually triggered?

A very strange offender indeed.

I suspect that he watched the Browns for quite a while. I think the daytime building work going on in the previous weeks might have affected a perp trying to inspect the property.

 

[HollyHunter9]

It was Roxanne's friend who had just passed her test. Roxanne's driving lesson was in the morning. I think she didn't know about the sleepover until later in the day.

I agree that the murderer probably knew a certain amount about Janet and Roxanne. I also agree that, one way or another, he knew a certain amount about the house. Many houses have patio doors at the rear and I think there were some other patio type windows at the rear of the house that could be cut. But the courtyard, where he did cut the glass, could not be seen from either the front or the rear. He would be unlikely to be seen by anyone other than someone in the room on the other side of the glass. He might have only discovered that courtyard on the day he broke in, but I think he more likely already knew about it. On a day when Janet was at work and Roxanne was at school he would have been able to inspect the rear of the house at leisure. The estate agent might have produced leaflets showing the layout of the house. Even without being on a list of people who had been shown around the house, the intruder could have seen a leaflet about the house, without his details being recorded by the estate agent.

Yes that's a good point about the estate agents creating leaflets with floor plans of the house. The fact they took glass cutters with them, but then cut a double glazed window and gave up after the first pane, shows they had some knowledge of the house but not enough to know the window was double glazed.

 

[tes1984]

The fact they took glass cutters with them, but then cut a double glazed window and gave up after the first pane, shows they had some knowledge of the house but not enough to know the window was double glazed.

Perhaps he knew the window would be double glazed, but thought he could cut through both panes in a couple of minutes.

Fast forward five minutes, and he's still only got through one pane, so he gives up and smashes the inner pane?

 

[tes1984]

I wonder if he also leaves via the patio doors, hence glass apparently being inside and outside the property.

 

[tes1984]

Despite the chaos, this killer was smart enough to not leave fingerprints or footprints. He also seems to have tried his upmost to avoid leaving DNA behind.

Paul Britton thought that the killer tried to avoid leaving bloody footprints or semen as evidence.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I wonder if he also leaves via the patio doors, hence glass apparently being inside and outside the property.

Good thinking. Although it was a quiet road and dark when he left, if he had left by the front door he would have been exposed while leaving the house and driveway before getting into the road. Someone in a passing vehicle could have seen him. Even once on the road (which had no pavement), it would have been fairly clear that he had just left the house, until he got some distance away. If he left through the smashed window that might account for glass being outside of the window because he pushed through the hole. He could then have walked parallel to the road, but behind hedges etc until he reached a point level with his parked car (assuming that it was his car that was seen parked in the off road area known as the tri angle).

 

[tes1984]

This killer gives me such BTK vibes. Planned everything to the last detail, yet still managed to make a series of dumb mistakes.

I can't see this murder being drug addicts (looking for easy cash) or a wandering lunatic. Such types wouldn't have the glass cutter. A drug addict/lunatic doesn't cut the glass, he just smashes a window.

 

[tes1984]

He could then have walked parallel to the road, but behind hedges etc until he reached a point level with his parked car (assuming that it was his car that was seen parked in the off road area known as the tri angle).

I think we should look through the local geography and work out the distances involved.

My view is that this killer will have parked up a lot further away than the triangle. I might be wrong though, as AFAIK the car has never been identified.

The timing are all important. I don't think the perp was there for hours.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I think we should look through the local geography and work out the distances involved.

My view is that this killer will have parked up a lot further away than the triangle. I might be wrong though, as AFAIK the car has never been identified.

The timing are all important. I don't think the perp was there for hours.

Thanks. I have driven along that road before. You can also follow it on google. Do have a look if you can. (The appearance of the house has changed and it is now called Harefield House.) The bushes etc at the roadside vary depending on the season and whether anyone has cut them back.

It isn't a road where you expect to see pedestrians, other than, perhaps, dog walkers. If the killer arrived behind the house, left behind the house and walked some distance to a car, walking through fields etc, parallel to the road, not using public footpaths and going behind the few houses in the road, that isn't something I have done or could do.

We do know a car was seen in the tri angle and, as far as I know, the driver has not come forward to be eliminated. (If the driver was not the murderer, what could he have been doing there?)

I will have a look though when I can.

 

[dotr]

Any possibility that the killer was a local teenager, or even a bit younger than that? speculation.