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

[Professor Moriarty]

https://assets.savills.com/properties/GBBFRSBCS180111/BCS180111_BCS18002314.PDF

This gives a plan of the house.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

His biggest chance of capture is Janet calling the police.

There aren't any neighbours who can see or hear anything.

What parts of the property would passing motorists have been able to see?

Sorry. There was a low wall at the front of the house. Passing motorists would have been able to see the front of the house, the front door and the windows to the rooms at the front. (There is now a big hedge and a higher wall, so that would not be possible now.) They would have seen the end of the barn built next to the house. They could easily have seen the two cars in the drive. (The cars would have blocked the above view somewhat.)

They could not have seen the glass door where the glass was cut and broken. They could not have seen Janet's bedroom, which was at the rear of the house.

Assuming that the killer did break in where the glass was cut and broken, he would have had to go into the next room (the dining room) and then gone up the stairs from the rear of that room. That would have brought him out right by Janet's bedroom door. It would not have taken long at all if he had immediately made his way to her bedroom (possibly because he believed that she was in that room, perhaps having seen a light from the rear of the house).

 

[Konstantin]

Assuming that the killer did break in where the glass was cut and broken, he would have had to go into the next room (the dining room) and then gone up the stairs from the rear of that room. That would have brought him out right by Janet's bedroom door. It would not have taken long at all if he had immediately made his way to her bedroom (possibly because he believed that she was in that room, perhaps having seen a light from the rear of the house).

If the killer had not been in the house before or had a floor plan how would he know where to find the staircase or where it would take him exactly in relation to Janet's room? Even if he saw a light in the back of the house he couldn't know that was her room or how to get to it from the inside of the house unless he was familiar somehow with the layout.

He would have to wander around opening doors and trying to find where things were.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

If the killer had not been in the house before or had a floor plan how would he know where to find the staircase or where it would take him exactly in relation to Janet's room? Even if he saw a light in the back of the house he couldn't know that was her room or how to get to it from the inside of the house unless he was familiar somehow with the layout.

He would have to wander around opening doors and trying to find where things were.

I don't know. If the only room with a light on was her room, he might have guessed that she would be in that room. He probably wouldn't have known that the stairs would bring him out right where her bedroom door was (unless he had been to the house before and/or had seen a floorplan). But if, once he reached the top of the stairs, he could see light around the edge of her door, he would know that was her door. (Maybe other bedroom doors were open and clearly in darkness and unoccupied.) Or maybe she opened her bedroom door.

This case is a mystery. Did she hear the glass breaking, some distance away? We don't know. Why didn't she dial 999? We don't know.

Perhaps, as you might be suggesting, he had been in the house and/or has seen a floor plan. Perhaps he had met her, or seen her before, and had an obsession with her. Perhaps he killed her because she knew who she was.

 

[Konstantin]

This case is a mystery. Did she hear the glass breaking, some distance away? We don't know. Why didn't she dial 999? We don't know.

Could there be another explanation, which is she knew him and let him in and something went wrong or he went there to kill her (but knew her) and he broke the glass afterwards to try to make it look like a robbery gone wrong?

If she knew him and invited him, that would explain him knowing the daughter was out for example.

Maybe this is completely off base, I don't know, just trying to think of alternative scenarios. The murder just feels so personal to Janet. And I am mindful of the profiler who pointed out that no one seemed to really know all that much about Janet -- she was secretive, could she have had a secret liaison?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Could there be another explanation, which is she knew him and let him in and something went wrong or he went there to kill her (but knew her) and he broke the glass afterwards to try to make it look like a robbery gone wrong?

If she knew him and invited him, that would explain him knowing the daughter was out for example.

Maybe this is completely off base, I don't know, just trying to think of alternative scenarios. The murder just feels so personal to Janet. And I am mindful of the profiler who pointed out that no one seemed to really know all that much about Janet -- she was secretive, could she have had a secret liaison?

What you say is possible. Since Roxanne was out for the night, Janet could have invited someone round. If that was the case, Janet might only have pretended that she was having an early night.

The killer does not seem to have parked in the driveway and took the handcuffs, tape, glass cutters and crowbar with him, intending to murder Janet. Possibly, he also wore gloves.

You would also think that the police would have checked outgoing calls from the house and from Janet's work office. Janet would have no reason to use a phonebox to avoid a record of the call. Her husband, in Switzerland, would not see home phone bills or query calls made.

The mysterious sighting, by the horse rider, of a distracted Janet in her car could even have been Janet going to fetch someone to her home, although this would mean that, if this was the murderer, he would have had to have walked to his home afterwards. He would also have had to have carried his "equipment" with him.

There is so little to go on.

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.

 

[tes1984]

I was thinking of a scenario where she drives to a phone box, calls her lover.

Possible divorce on the horizon, so she doesn't want to leave any phone record?

Husband will settle the household bills before the house sale, but will go through them all with a fine tooth comb?

 

[Konstantin]

Possible divorce on the horizon, so she doesn't want to leave any phone record?

There are lots of reasons why someone would not want phone calls to an affair partner on one's phone bill, including this. Even if you were not planning a divorce. Why risk having it come out?

The Browns were selling the house and planning to move, was that as a couple? There is no indication of a divorce but that might not be made public of course.

If and this is obviously just a theoretical scenario etc etc JB was having an affair and then told her lover she was moving away, and so perhaps ending things, that might have triggered something.

I'm suggesting this scenario because this just does not look like a "burglary gone wrong". Bringing a murder / rape kit to a burglary and then brutally murdering the householder that you must have known was present in the house because her car was on the drive and lights on, is not just "inept" it's not really believable. This feels personal against Janet, who by all accounts was a quiet figure. The profiler specifically noted in his profile that this struck him because she seemed unusually bland. She kept a very low profile, it seems. So if she did have an affair somehow, it would fit that she didn't leave traces of that in her home.

A DNA trace was left that has not thrown up any match so the murderer has not been caught and arrested for other crimes (since routine DNA samples began to be taken).

If this was someone who killed for their own gratification you would expect them to do it again. There was another murder a while later that the police considered whether was linked to this but that one does look like an actual robbery gone wrong, whereas this one just....doesn't. Huge step from breaking in to nick a few bits of jewellery and TVs and restraining and then bludgeoning a woman to death.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

There are lots of reasons why someone would not want phone calls to an affair partner on one's phone bill, including this. Even if you were not planning a divorce. Why risk having it come out?

The Browns were selling the house and planning to move, was that as a couple? There is no indication of a divorce but that might not be made public of course.

If and this is obviously just a theoretical scenario etc etc JB was having an affair and then told her lover she was moving away, and so perhaps ending things, that might have triggered something.

I'm suggesting this scenario because this just does not look like a "burglary gone wrong". Bringing a murder / rape kit to a burglary and then brutally murdering the householder that you must have known was present in the house because her car was on the drive and lights on, is not just "inept" it's not really believable. This feels personal against Janet, who by all accounts was a quiet figure. The profiler specifically noted in his profile that this struck him because she seemed unusually bland. She kept a very low profile, it seems. So if she did have an affair somehow, it would fit that she didn't leave traces of that in her home.

A DNA trace was left that has not thrown up any match so the murderer has not been caught and arrested for other crimes (since routine DNA samples began to be taken).

If this was someone who killed for their own gratification you would expect them to do it again. There was another murder a while later that the police considered whether was linked to this but that one does look like an actual robbery gone wrong, whereas this one just....doesn't. Huge step from breaking in to nick a few bits of jewellery and TVs and restraining and then bludgeoning a woman to death.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

We have speculated in this thread that, maybe, the killer entered through a door-either let in by Janet or barging his way in-and later broke glass from the inside to make it look like he had smashed the patio door to get in.

However, that would mean that, after killing Janet, he smashed the inner glass pane and then stood, inside the house, laboriously using the glass cutter to cut a large man shaped hole in the outer pane. The Crimewatch video makes clear that he used some special tape used for taping up broken window panes in greenhouses etc Presumably, he used the tape on the outside of the window while he was cutting the glass to stop bits of glass falling and shattering noisily before he had finished. If he had used the tape on the inside of the outer pane, wouldn't it have been clear to the police that he had cut the glass from the inside?

 

[Sor Juana]

Whoever did this to Janet Brown wasn’t just some random nutter. He was cool, calculated, planned it out like clockwork. Didn’t steal, didn’t run, just wanted control. The way he tied her up and stayed calm even with the alarm ringing... That’s chilling.
He probably knew her routine, lived nearby, and blended in. Could’ve been a tradesman or someone local- now likely in his 50s or 60s.

Finding him means digging back through old records, using DNA genealogy, and watching online forums for someone who might’ve gotten chido reliving their moment in the shadows. The bloke thought he was untouchable. He’s not.

 

[Konstantin]

He probably knew her routine, lived nearby, and blended in. Could’ve been a tradesman or someone local- now likely in his 50s or 60s.

Do you think this was personal to Janet or just some psychopath who got off on killing?

If the latter, my question is why he hasn't done this again. It seems highly unlikely that if he was a one and done.

Also if the latter, unlikely he started off with a murder like this one. He must have offended before in "smaller" ways surely?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Do you think this was personal to Janet or just some psychopath who got off on killing?

If the latter, my question is why he hasn't done this again. It seems highly unlikely that if he was a one and done.

Also if the latter, unlikely he started off with a murder like this one. He must have offended before in "smaller" ways surely?

Of course, it is possible that he did do something similar: the Carolanne Jackson murder. She was a lady of similar age, living in the same area and killed almost on the anniversary of Janet's murder. Maybe the same murderer, maybe not.

Someone did also comment on here that the idea that psychopath type people must keep on repeating such offences is exaggerated. Some people who are caught turn out not to have repeated offences. Eg. maybe they get married and settle down.

 

[tes1984]

We have speculated in this thread that, maybe, the killer entered through a door-either let in by Janet or barging his way in-and later broke glass from the inside to make it look like he had smashed the patio door to get in.

However, that would mean that, after killing Janet, he smashed the inner glass pane and then stood, inside the house, laboriously using the glass cutter to cut a large man shaped hole in the outer pane. The Crimewatch video makes clear that he used some special tape used for taping up broken window panes in greenhouses etc Presumably, he used the tape on the outside of the window while he was cutting the glass to stop bits of glass falling and shattering noisily before he had finished. If he had used the tape on the inside of the outer pane, wouldn't it have been clear to the police that he had cut the glass from the inside?

If he smashed his way into the house, then why didn't the forensic team find any tiny glass fragments on the piece of carpet they examined?

Could the piece of carpet have been too far away from the patio for the glass to carry?

 

[tes1984]

Whoever did this to Janet Brown wasn’t just some random nutter. He was cool, calculated, planned it out like clockwork. Didn’t steal, didn’t run, just wanted control. The way he tied her up and stayed calm even with the alarm ringing... That’s chilling.
He probably knew her routine, lived nearby, and blended in. Could’ve been a tradesman or someone local- now likely in his 50s or 60s.

If it was planned out like clockwork, then doesn't that mean the killer was expecting to encounter two people?

I think the police looked at all the people who had visited the house. Perhaps they missed someone, or didn't go back far enough time wise.

I suspect that the killer would now be in his 60s or 70s, and that he lived far enough away from the crime scene to avoid the local investigation. I may be completely wrong though..

 

[Professor Moriarty]

If it was planned out like clockwork, then doesn't that mean the killer was expecting to encounter two people?

I think the police looked at all the people who had visited the house. Perhaps they missed someone, or didn't go back far enough time wise.

I suspect that the killer would now be in his 60s or 70s, and that he lived far enough away from the crime scene to avoid the local investigation. I may be completely wrong though..

I agree. A man with a van or someone like that. At sometime he came across Janet, Roxanne or the house. His interest was piqued. He fantasised, researched and acted. Maybe he was also responsible for the Carolanne Jackson murder. Maybe he wasn't.

One possible explanation for why he hasn't been caught could be that he is from overseas and he returned. Or he is not from overseas, but moved overseas. (His DNA should indicate his ethnicity, but if he is British, he could simply have moved overseas.)

 

[tes1984]

Regarding the house sale, I think Janet was going to take her half of the money, and buy a smaller house for herself and Roxanne. Somewhere fairly local, as she still had a work contract and Roxanne was in the middle of her A levels.

I'm not sure if Janet's husband was going to continue his regular visits, or if the couple were going to separate officially, or even get divorced.

As for the appeal suggesting the killer must have told someone, I think this is a fairly standard tactic. Trying to appeal to those close to the killer, rather than directly to the killer himself.

 

[tes1984]

IIRC there was a rape case around the same time, where one of the suspects was a BDSM master. The police eventually cleared him of the rapes, but were very surprised at how many 'normal' women in the area were using his bondage services.

Complete speculation, but what if Janet invites such a character round for bondage and possibly also private photography? She keeps her interest and involvement in BDSM secret. The only clue being the handcuffs she keeps in her dressing room.

 

[Konstantin]

Complete speculation, but what if Janet invites such a character round for bondage and possibly also private photography? She keeps her interest and involvement in BDSM secret. The only clue being the handcuffs she keeps in her dressing room.

This is an interesting hypothesis.

Not to shame or disparage anyone but one thing that stood out to me was regarding the handcuffs, which I believe Janet's husband said he thought she had or they had at one point. I can't find a source for that right now but perhaps it was in Paul Britton's book? So that seems to have been something she experimented with at least in the past.

It strikes me that, as has been noted above, if the killer had planned this out meticulously ahead of time, he could not have know that Janet's daughter would be out that evening. It is one thing to control one person but quite another to control two.

Janet knew that her daughter was going out and armed with that knowledge she could have invited someone around. When was she seen driving away from the property -- was that after she knew her daughter was going to be out?

Regarding the thought that the killer entered by cutting the glass, could this have been part of a cover up? It's a bit elaborate I suppose.

 

[tes1984]

The handcuffs stuff is in the PB book. Janet's husband thought he recalled seeing the handcuffs in the past, but couldn't be sure. Funny thing to find, but not discuss with your other half. I'm not sure if GB shared Janet's bedroom when he was there, or if they had seperate bedrooms.

It is possible that the handcuffs weren't Janet's, which would mean that the killer brought them there as part of his kit.