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

[Cedars]

This is from a few years ago but I think the position remains unchanged:

Should we be making use of genetic genealogy to assist in solving crime? A report on the feasibility of such methods in the UK (accessible version)

www.gov.uk

Unchanged probably because the police and politicians aren’t being put under any pressure to do things differently, sadly.

In Canada, it was just individual police officers in different jurisdictions who got enthusiastic to try it, went for training, etc.

The detectives and police forces get enormous kudos for finally solving troubling decades-old crimes, no one cares about the privacy issues.

Although, in many cases, respectable families have been shocked to discover they were living with murderers.

ETA: and it could act as a deterrant if perps are asuming "no one will ever suspect me".

 

[rvlvr]

I think there are too many concerns about its legality for police forces here to just try it, I could see perhaps a detective going ‘rogue’, a Stephen Fulcher type maybe, trying to force the issue?

 

[tes1984]

Genetic genealogy aside, it's quite sad that the police don't utilise familial searches more often.

Familial searches have had a 7.5% success rate in UK cases since 2012. A lot of police chiefs don't want to spend the budget on something which fails over 90% of the time.

The UK public are definitely on board with familial searches though. It was a very significant moment when David Fuller was caught, but unfortunately no MP used that politically charged moment to demand familial searches in all UK cold cases.

 

[tes1984]

I think there are too many concerns about its legality for police forces here to just try it, I could see perhaps a detective going ‘rogue’, a Stephen Fulcher type maybe, trying to force the issue?

It's apparently a legal nightmare.

I wonder about a scenario where a detective on the JB case finds a near identical USA case. Can he or she send US detectives a DNA profile for comparison with the US case?

Is the UK sample then entered into the US database?
If so, then does it become eligible for US genealogy searches?

 

[Cedars]

It's apparently a legal nightmare.

I wonder about a scenario where a detective on the JB case finds a near identical USA case. Can he or she send US detectives a DNA profile for comparison with the US case?

Is the UK sample then entered into the US database?
If so, then does it become eligible for US genealogy searches?

I'm not sure whether police jurisdictions share DNA databases so directly. They may not be allowed to, by the laws that enabled police to collect and store DNA from convicted criminals. That is usually within a national network.

What police are doing now, is searching public genealogy databases (which anyone can search to trace their family tree). These databases use the DNA voluntarily submitted by the public, in order to trace their family tree. They also contain the hundreds of thousands of family trees already constructed by geneology enthusiasts, going back decades.

So, police hire a DNA lab to enter the DNA that was directly collected from the crime scene, usually from old, unsolved crimes, as it is a slow process.

DNA research labs are incredibly sophisticated now, they don't expect a direct match. They can detect the genetic connection between two people who share, for eg, great-great-great grandparents.

The police then employ whiz genalogical researchers who trace the family lineage down from these distant connections (knowing of course, the time and place of the crime), eventually pinpoint a suspect or suspects.

They then try to get some of that suspect's DNA to verify the match to the DNA found at the crime scene.

There was a recent case in Canada, where they had DNA from a series of murders in the 1970s.

They traced them to an American who had only lived in Canada during the period of the murders, and who'd died in US prison. But they didn't find him through a direct match to his prison record, they had to trace him via his family genealogy.

Just for info on the process:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/world/canada/american-serial-killer-murders-canada.html

 

[Sluether87]

This information is all from books/news articles:

- No secret lover was reported. Janet had a 9-5 and lived with her teenage daughter. This was before the widespread use of mobile phones. It doesn't really seem plausible that she would/could hide a relationship. Not to mention, the marriage was over and they were seemingly amicable . She had no need to hide a lover.

- The killer came prepared with 2 types of tape, a glass cutter, a long heavy weapon, handcuffs with keys (which they most likely brought with them) and very possibly a torch. Alongside the time of day, this indicates it was not simply a robbery attempt. They came prepared to subdue someone.

- Nothing in the house was touched aside from a hamper containing scuba diving equipment, which reportedly had been opened. There was speculation that the TV had been unplugged, and Janet's children were not sure if that was typical.

- Diluted blood around the lightswitches indicated the killer had washed up and had been nosying around in the dark. They could not get a DNA profile from it due to the technology of the time. They did dismantle the sink and the shower, but it's never been reported if they they found nothing, if there was no visible blood, or again, if it was just that they didn’t have the technology to detect a profile.

- What makes the above odd to me, is that Janet must have pressed one of the two panic buttons. The inside alarm ran continuously until it was switched off, so the killer must have been roaming around the house in the dark, completely unaware/unbothered if anyone would catch them with an alarm blaring in their ears!

- The police think Janet was disturbed upstairs, as they found a dressing gown in a heap, yet she was known to sleep naked and her clothes were folded neatly, at the end of the bed I think. She was wearing all her jewellery...why?

I think it all points to some kind of weird sadist. They clearly knew Janet and the house in some capacity. I hope the police eventually turn to familial DNA as that's the only way they're going to be caught at this point.

 

[tes1984]

Good summary, although I don't think it's certain that the killer brought the handcuffs with him, or that Janet pressed a panic button.

I don't agree that familial DNA is the only way to catch this killer. A direct DNA match is surely a possibility too.

 

[Sor Juana]

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?

Vanessa Brown wrote, “Thieves don't take handcuffs to a robbery... The one focus had been Janet, a desire to humiliate and control her. It had to be personal”.

The killer brought handcuffs, tape, a blunt weapon, a glass cutter - tools that imply planning and intent, not opportunism. Nothing was stolen anyway.

 

[Cedars]

Vanessa Brown wrote, “Thieves don't take handcuffs to a robbery... The one focus had been Janet, a desire to humiliate and control her. It had to be personal”.

The killer brought handcuffs, tape, a blunt weapon, a glass cutter - tools that imply planning and intent, not opportunism. Nothing was stolen anyway.

So, was it just coincidence that she was alone that night?

Or did the person bring two sets of handcuffs and a gun or other means to subdue two women who would be in different areas of the home...?

 

[rvlvr]

This is the big unknown isn’t it - did he know or correctly assume J was alone, or was he planning on tackling two women?

A theory I’ve put forward before re the latter scenario is that perhaps he would’ve presented himself as a burglar, and would’ve aimed to quickly overpower one of the women (most likely J), with the expectation that the other would’ve complied with his demands. He may have been prepared to then kill or at least gravely injure one of the women early on in order to focus on the other.

But this is all supposition on my part, I think it’s certainly possible that instead this was a random act, that perhaps the killer was driving around the area, that he spotted then observed the house for a time before deducing that J was alone, then decided to act - that said, I can’t think of another (though I’m sure examples exist) ‘home invasion’ murder in the UK where the method of entry was cutting a hole in a glass door? The uniqueness of it suggests to me, and to echo what @Sor Juana said, planning and intent.

 

[tes1984]

Vanessa Brown wrote, “Thieves don't take handcuffs to a robbery... The one focus had been Janet, a desire to humiliate and control her. It had to be personal”.

The killer brought handcuffs, tape, a blunt weapon, a glass cutter - tools that imply planning and intent, not opportunism. Nothing was stolen anyway.

I tend to agree, although one issue is that thieves did sometimes take handcuffs to robberies.

In this case, it's also not certain that the killer brought the handcuffs with him. Janet's husband thought he might have recalled the handcuffs being in Janet's dressing room.

 

[tes1984]

I can’t think of another (though I’m sure examples exist) ‘home invasion’ murder in the UK where the method of entry was cutting a hole in a glass door? The uniqueness of it suggests to me, and to echo what @Sor Juana said, planning and intent.

There were local burglaries (of commercial property) where the thieves used glass cutters. Police ruled out a link with Janet's murder though.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I could be reading too much into it, after all a lot of crimes are similar, but some of the murder does have the same characteristics of the BTK killings - home invasion, handcuffs etc. Was the killer perhaps influenced by reading about BTK?

 

[TheRockingRev]

This information is all from books/news articles:



- What makes the above odd to me, is that Janet must have pressed one of the two panic buttons. The inside alarm ran continuously until it was switched off, so the killer must have been roaming around the house in the dark, completely unaware/unbothered if anyone would catch them with an alarm blaring in their ears!

This is a really strange one to me, as the alarm would also mean presumably that they wouldn't hear had a police car turned up at the scene - plus having an alarm would be quite disorientating. Really strikes you as a disturbed individual. I wonder if there has ever been a look at suicides after the murder - you just wonder how someone who had committed such a horrendous crime could go back into a normal life and not offend again.

 

[dotr]

fwiw..
Just noting an unrelated murder (1990) where the killer, a highschooler, used a glass cutter to enter the home and kill the occupants.
Cash was present for the perp to steal, but it was not stolen.

How Forgiveness Works, From A Woman Who Reached Out To Her Sister's Killer

Every once in a while at Think, we reschedule a guest last-minute when news breaks. Last week I called Change Of Heart author Jeanne Bishop to explain…

www.keranews.org

''David Biro was waiting for them to come home. He'd used a glass cutter to carve out pieces in their sliding door, quietly stacking the pieces unnoticed by neighbors. The teenager shot Richard in the head and Nancy in the belly and left them to die, taking nothing with him. There was $500 in cash on the ground when the police came''.

 

[Sluether87]

Good summary, although I don't think it's certain that the killer brought the handcuffs with him, or that Janet pressed a panic button.

I don't agree that familial DNA is the only way to catch this killer. A direct DNA match is surely a possibility too.

The husband said he thought they may have come from the house, but he wasn't sure. He didn't say (as mentioned above) they were from her dressing table. They were found to be mass produced, generic with no identifiable features. I'd argue, it is extremely unlikely that a pair of handcuffs would just happen to be visible and in-reach of an intruder, who had everything to subdue someone...except handcuffs.

The panic button is unclear, but one of the authors indicated that the police thought she may have pressed the one downstairs, near the main door, due to the presence of a half-turned key. The most likely explanation is that she pressed the one by her bedside, in stunned silence, after hearing someone breaking into her house. That said, the alternative would have to be that the murderer pressed it. On purpose or by accident.

 

[tes1984]

GB was asked if there was any possibility that the handcuffs were already in the house, and he said that he thought they might have been.

If the killer found the handcuffs, then presumably it would have been when he made Janet put on her jewellery.

The panic button stuff is confusing. There were two alarms and IIRC the external one was heard at 10pm but not at 10.20pm. The other alarm rang continuously until switched off, but was it triggered around 8.20pm during the break in, or later in the evening?

 

[Sluether87]

GB was asked if there was any possibility that the handcuffs were already in the house, and he said that he thought they might have been.

If the killer found the handcuffs, then presumably it would have been when he made Janet put on her jewellery.

The panic button stuff is confusing. There were two alarms and IIRC the external one was heard at 10pm but not at 10.20pm. The other alarm rang continuously until switched off, but was it triggered around 8.20pm during the break in, or later in the evening?

I agree, there are so many unanswered questions in this case.

My questions alone:

In the Crimewatch reconstruction, Janet tells her daughter she is tired and going to bed. It is shown that she takes this and her final call, at 8:10pm, downstairs in the lounge/living-room, but how can that be? The perpetrator was almost certainly outside at this time, trying to get in with the glasscutter. Wouldn't Janet have seen/heard them? If not, they must have seen her, which is disturbing.

This is only intriguing to me, as 10 minutes later she doesn't answer the phone and it is assumed that by then, she was incapacitated. But Britton says her clothes were folded at the end of the bed and the sheets were crumpled. So in only 10 minutes she went upstairs and prepped for bed while the suspect was breaking in and didn't hear them until they entered?

That said, the reconstruction does show there is a second phone upstairs on the bedside table, so I guess it is also possible she that she takes the calls in her room, and she is already in bed.

Then there's the issue of the patio doors. We know the suspect went to great lengths cutting a man-sized slab of glass, not realising it was double glazing. They subsequently smashed through the second pane, but why was more glass found outside than in? How did they enter, if not there?

Another - If Janet pressed the panic alarm at 8:20pm, then the perpetrator clearly endured the ringing for some time. How did they know the alarms were not linked to police? Or that no one would appear? In that time, the lights were on, Janet was moved around, made to put heavy jewellery on, cuffed, tied and untied by her ankles, and perhaps sat on (according to Paul Britton). This person had to be really sure they wouldn't be caught. They have to have had detailed knowledge of the family dynamics.

Finally, if nothing was taken, why do the police believe it was a 'failed' robbery? As far as I've ever read, evidence only points to the suspect nosing around the house (only scubadiving gear hamper was open). So what leads them to this theory? In Britton's book, he says the police held back some 'operative' details. I wonder what they were?

The biggest of all. Why didn't they strike again?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

fwiw..
Just noting an unrelated murder (1990) where the killer, a highschooler, used a glass cutter to enter the home and kill the occupants.
Cash was present for the perp to steal, but it was not stolen.

How Forgiveness Works, From A Woman Who Reached Out To Her Sister's Killer

Every once in a while at Think, we reschedule a guest last-minute when news breaks. Last week I called Change Of Heart author Jeanne Bishop to explain…

www.keranews.org

''David Biro was waiting for them to come home. He'd used a glass cutter to carve out pieces in their sliding door, quietly stacking the pieces unnoticed by neighbors. The teenager shot Richard in the head and Nancy in the belly and left them to die, taking nothing with him. There was $500 in cash on the ground when the police came''.

Thanks. The similarity goes a bit further. Not only did the killer use glass cutters, he also used handcuffs on the male. He broke in while the couple were out and then, when they returned, controlled both of them, handcuffing the male. He did, however, have a pistol. He didn't steal anything. $500 dollars were left on the floor.

 

[Sor Juana]

I agree, there are so many unanswered questions in this case.

My questions alone:

In the Crimewatch reconstruction, Janet tells her daughter she is tired and going to bed. It is shown that she takes this and her final call, at 8:10pm, downstairs in the lounge/living-room, but how can that be? The perpetrator was almost certainly outside at this time, trying to get in with the glasscutter. Wouldn't Janet have seen/heard them? If not, they must have seen her, which is disturbing.

This is only intriguing to me, as 10 minutes later she doesn't answer the phone and it is assumed that by then, she was incapacitated. But Britton says her clothes were folded at the end of the bed and the sheets were crumpled. So in only 10 minutes she went upstairs and prepped for bed while the suspect was breaking in and didn't hear them until they entered?

That said, the reconstruction does show there is a second phone upstairs on the bedside table, so I guess it is also possible she that she takes the calls in her room, and she is already in bed.

Then there's the issue of the patio doors. We know the suspect went to great lengths cutting a man-sized slab of glass, not realising it was double glazing. They subsequently smashed through the second pane, but why was more glass found outside than in? How did they enter, if not there?

Another - If Janet pressed the panic alarm at 8:20pm, then the perpetrator clearly endured the ringing for some time. How did they know the alarms were not linked to police? Or that no one would appear? In that time, the lights were on, Janet was moved around, made to put heavy jewellery on, cuffed, tied and untied by her ankles, and perhaps sat on (according to Paul Britton). This person had to be really sure they wouldn't be caught. They have to have had detailed knowledge of the family dynamics.

Finally, if nothing was taken, why do the police believe it was a 'failed' robbery? As far as I've ever read, evidence only points to the suspect nosing around the house (only scubadiving gear hamper was open). So what leads them to this theory? In Britton's book, he says the police held back some 'operative' details. I wonder what they were?

The biggest of all. Why didn't they strike again?

More glass outside than inside suggests that the outer pane was broken outwards, possibly during a struggle. The entry point may not have been the patio door at all, some theorize the killer may have used another access point and staged the patio damage to mislead investigators. The killer seemed calm and prepared, possibly because he knew (!) the family's routines. And this leads to another suggestion: the motive seems personal, given such a degree of preparedness, meaning the killer targeted Janet.