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

[Professor Moriarty]

There are photos showing the special sellotape (normally used for repairing greenhouses etc) on the outside of the window on the outline of the man size hole the intruder cut. That suggests it was at least cut from the outside. It would surely be unlikely that, having entered by another means, the killer would stand outside laboriously cutting and taping the large hole, re enter and push the glass out, or that he would have cut it earlier, entered by another means and later pushed the glass out. What would he gain by doing that?

On the night in question, I don't think routine was followed. It was unusual for Roxanne to spend the night elsewhere. (I also don't think the killer knew about the sleepover. Even if he had observed the house during the day- the front of the house would be difficult to observe for long, given the nature of the road- and seen Roxanne leave, he would not have known about the sleepover. If he had known that she hadn't returned, he would have been concerned that she could return at any moment.) If anything, Janet broke routine, by going to bed earlier.

Work had been done on the house in preparation for sale. Janet worked and had a commute every day. I do wonder if Janet had ever lent a key to a builder or tradesman and he had copied it and so walked straight in through the front door. But, even so, what would be gained by some deception about cutting the glass? Would that have thrown police off the scent of a copied key and scrutiny of tradesmen? The police must have looked closely at tradesmen nevertheless.

 

[Sor Juana]

There are photos showing the special sellotape (normally used for repairing greenhouses etc) on the outside of the window on the outline of the man size hole the intruder cut. That suggests it was at least cut from the outside. It would surely be unlikely that, having entered by another means, the killer would stand outside laboriously cutting and taping the large hole, re enter and push the glass out, or that he would have cut it earlier, entered by another means and later pushed the glass out. What would he gain by doing that?

On the night in question, I don't think routine was followed. It was unusual for Roxanne to spend the night elsewhere. (I also don't think the killer knew about the sleepover. Even if he had observed the house during the day- the front of the house would be difficult to observe for long, given the nature of the road- and seen Roxanne leave, he would not have known about the sleepover. If he had known that she hadn't returned, he would have been concerned that she could return at any moment.) If anything, Janet broke routine, by going to bed earlier.

Work had been done on the house in preparation for sale. Janet worked and had a commute every day. I do wonder if Janet had ever lent a key to a builder or tradesman and he had copied it and so walked straight in through the front door. But, even so, what would be gained by some deception about cutting the glass? Would that have thrown police off the scent of a copied key and scrutiny of tradesmen? The police must have looked closely at tradesmen nevertheless.

The glass-cutting and taped window suggest the killer wanted to stage a break-in, but if he had a copied key, it raises the question: why bother? It could’ve been a deliberate attempt to mislead police, making it look like a random burglary. The timing is suspicious too: Janet had broken routine by going to bed early, and Roxanne’s sleepover may have disrupted the killer’s plan. But what if he knew she’d be gone? That would imply inside knowledge and premeditation. The house was being prepped for sale, which means new people such as builders, landscapers, agents, etc had access, and someone loosely connected to that process could’ve exploited it. The dna evidence hasn’t led to a match, and it’s unclear whether familial tracing has even been pursued. Altogether, the crime feels calculated yet theatrical, as if the killer wanted to be seen but only through a distorted lens.

JB was getting ready to sell her house, which likely meant she wanted to leave or start a new chapter. For someone emotionally attached to her, that could have felt threatening. In a village like Radnage, where routines run deep, selling a long-time home might have felt like tearing something apart. There might also have been someone who had feelings for her -feelings she didn’t return. And when jealousy mixes with rejection, it can turn into something much darker.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

it’s unclear whether familial tracing has even been pursued.

As previously discussed, familial tracing is not legal in the UK.

There are ethical and legal barriers regarding privacy, consent, and potential misuse of genetic data.

People have not consented to their DNA being used by police when they provided their samples to genealogy databases. Their relatives have not consented.

Home Office forensic people do check if there is a relative on the police DNA database and that can lead to perpetrators being traced. However, they do not check other genealogy databases, for the reasons mentioned.

 

[Zalensia]

You had a lot of military in the area back then that were dealing with crash n smash, military people move about a lot, how they get away with so much.

Sexual assaults all the time, the last big one was when the staff Sgt in charge of investigating was doing the assaulting on top, when reports were made. They release reports when some thing really big happens, so it's usually missed completely.

Was it the uk that tested all the men in one area when dna started? They should do it again, sorry just my opinion and like an onion it had many layers.

 

[rvlvr]

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.

According to the podcast referenced a few pages back, the external alarm was heard ringing at around 10.20pm. It would apparently only ring for 20 minutes, so the time frame during which it would’ve rang was 10pm to 10.40pm. But, we don’t know when the internal alarm was triggered? Why, as you say, was the killer so confident that police wouldn’t show? Surely the sound of the alarm ringing would’ve driven them mad?

Again, according to the podcast, the alarm could be turned on/off by entering and turning a key and then entering a code. Apparently the key was half turned, suggesting either Janet had been disturbed while setting the alarm, or perhaps that the killer had tried turning it off?

Or, perhaps, that the killer deliberately triggered it while leaving? Perhaps they were hoping that the scene would be discovered that night, perhaps the sights and sounds of emergency workers attending the scene would’ve excited them? If they were local they could’ve returned to a place of safety and observed or at least heard the drama unfolding. Far fetched maybe, but so much about this crime doesn’t make sense that I feel like anything’s possible.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

According to the podcast referenced a few pages back, the external alarm was heard ringing at around 10.20pm. It would apparently only ring for 20 minutes, so the time frame during which it would’ve rang was 10pm to 10.40pm. But, we don’t know when the internal alarm was triggered? Why, as you say, was the killer so confident that police wouldn’t show? Surely the sound of the alarm ringing would’ve driven them mad?

Again, according to the podcast, the alarm could be turned on/off by entering and turning a key and then entering a code. Apparently the key was half turned, suggesting either Janet had been disturbed while setting the alarm, or perhaps that the killer had tried turning it off?

Or, perhaps, that the killer deliberately triggered it while leaving? Perhaps they were hoping that the scene would be discovered that night, perhaps the sights and sounds of emergency workers attending the scene would’ve excited them? If they were local they could’ve returned to a place of safety and observed or at least heard the drama unfolding. Far fetched maybe, but so much about this crime doesn’t make sense that I feel like anything’s possible.

Such alarms are not connected to the police. Normally, if the homeowner pays for the extra service, the burglar alarm is connected (by the phone line) to the alarm company. If the burglar alarm goes off, the alarm company phone the homeowner, failing the home owner, they phone some neighbour nominated by the homeowner. I don't know if, failing the nominated person, the alarm company would then phone the police. I don't think they do, because of false alarms.

If the panic alarm is sounded, and the extra service is paid for, the alarm company definitely phones the house. Whoever answers the phone must give an agreed code word, failing which, the alarm company calls the police. If Janet triggered the panic alarm, the intruder might have realised that the extra service had not been paid for because there was no phone call from the alarm company.

Of course, the intruder might have known that the alarms were not connected to the alarm company. Or, the intruder was reckless and didn't care.

 

[rvlvr]

Such alarms are not connected to the police. Normally, if the homeowner pays for the extra service, the burglar alarm is connected (by the phone line) to the alarm company. If the burglar alarm goes off, the alarm company phone the homeowner, failing the home owner, they phone some neighbour nominated by the homeowner. I don't know if, failing the nominated person, the alarm company would then phone the police. I don't think they do, because of false alarms.

If the panic alarm is sounded, and the extra service is paid for, the alarm company definitely phones the house. Whoever answers the phone must give an agreed code word, failing which, the alarm company calls the police. If Janet triggered the panic alarm, the intruder might have realised that the extra service had not been paid for because there was no phone call from the alarm company.

Of course, the intruder might have known that the alarms were not connected to the alarm company. Or, the intruder was reckless and didn't care.

I don’t dispute any of this, but I feel like it doesn’t really answer the question of ‘how would the killer know police weren’t going to show up?’ Burglars would be quite familiar with these systems and processes I suppose, but if this wasn’t a burglary gone wrong and this was a targeted attack against Janet and/or Roxanne, could the perpetrator be sure that an alarm blaring for a considerable period of time wouldn’t have consequences?

Then again, maybe it wasn’t triggered until after the perpetrator was finished and about to leave? Perhaps it wasn’t Janet who triggered it but the perpetrator, accidentally, or even deliberately?

 

[trendsetter]

Floor plan of the house from estate agent's particulars (the house named here as Cabbage Hall Farm).

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Floor plan of the house from estate agent's particulars (the house named here as Cabbage Hall Farm).

I would mention that this floor plan is from a much later date. Some time after Janet's murder, a conservatory was added. This replaced the "courtyard" which the intruder supposedly entered and in which he supposedly cut the glass in a patio door, in order to enter the house.

The house is very different now: a wall and bushes block the view of the front of the house from the road and the driveway is now next to the barn.

When Janet was at work and Roxanne at school, someone would have had freedom to walk around the back of the house examining where best to enter. If he had spied on the house in the evening, he could have worked out which bedrooms were in use by Janet and Roxanne. The courtyard only had one entrance/exit, which meant the intruder could have been cornered by someone coming in that entrance. However, if he knew that only Janet and Roxanne lived in the house, he might have discounted this. He also seems to have been reckless, especially considering that there was no obvious benefit to him in carrying out this home invasion and murder.

 

[tes1984]

It would have been tricky for the killer to have loitered near the house that day, as there was building work going on.

He was definitely spying on the house in the evening, but I'm not sure how he would have known exactly who was inside the house, or where Roxanne's bedroom was. The master bedroom would probably be fairly easy to identify. If the killer had watched the house for weeks or months, he would have also noticed that Janet didn't draw the blinds in her bedroom.

Roxanne's car was in the drive (complete with learner plates) which would have suggested a young person lived there, but how does the killer know that the car doesn't belong to a strapping 20 year old male, rather than a 17 year old female?

 

[Warwick1991]

Perhaps the alarm system is a critical element of this crime. The perpetrator apparently understood that the alarm, once triggered, wouldn't alert the alarm company. That suggests that the perpetrator was aware of not only the alarm type, but the services that were part of the alarm contract.

There is a possibility then, that the perpetrator worked for the alarm company in some capacity. In the US, serial killer Dennis Rader worked for ADT, a large alarm company. While he was employed by ADT, his access to homes as an alarm installer played a role in planning his crimes. His company van was seen near his victim's homes, although it wasn't properly investigated at the time.

A tradesman visiting the house, even if they observed the alarm system, wouldn't necessarily be aware of the level of service the victim had.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I wasn't thinking of the intruder investigating the house on the day of the murder. He could have done it some time before. If he had an obsession with Janet, he could have done it on multiple occasions.

The alarm company thing is difficult. Someone at the alarm company could have looked up the house records without being the technician who installed or serviced the alarm. Again, I would hope that the police looked into this, as far as they could.

 

[tes1984]

I wasn't thinking of the intruder investigating the house on the day of the murder. He could have done it some time before. If he had an obsession with Janet, he could have done it on multiple occasions.

I wonder why he commits the murder on a Monday evening. If it's all planned well in advance, then what 'tactical advantages' does a Monday give him?

 

[dotr]

I wonder why he commits the murder on a Monday evening. If it's all planned well in advance, then what 'tactical advantages' does a Monday give him?

First thing to come to mind is a hairdresser, has a Tuesday off work or the wife or mother is away ! speculation.

 

[tes1984]

First thing to come to mind is a hairdresser, has a Tuesday off work or the wife or mother is away ! speculation.

I wonder if he plans things so he can make his escape at a time when the streets are clear of potential witnesses. Not many people out and about on a Monday night (apart from the neighbours who drive past and hear the alarm).

Maybe he also suspects that the Browns won't have any visitors on a Monday evening.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Both of Mrs Brown's daughters have taken part in appeals. However, Mrs Brown also had a son. He was away at university. Many students would have been back home on 10 April, as it would have been the Easter vacation. For some reason, Mrs Brown's son was still away. I wonder if the killer knew that Mrs Brown had a son, that he was away at university and might return home for Easter any day soon and so he struck while the son was still away.

 

[tes1984]

Both of Mrs Brown's daughters have taken part in appeals. However, Mrs Brown also had a son. He was away at university. Many students would have been back home on 10 April, as it would have been the Easter vacation. For some reason, Mrs Brown's son was still away. I wonder if the killer knew that Mrs Brown had a son, that he was away at university and might return home for Easter any day soon and so he struck while the son was still away.

Good point about Janet's son. Easter was the following weekend, with Easter Sunday six days after Janet's murder. I wonder if the whole family had planned to meet up for one last Easter in the family home.

I also wonder when Janet's husband was next due back in the UK. Add in the house being sold, and Janet and Roxanne moving to a less isolated property, and the killer may indeed have released he had little time left to strike.

 

[tes1984]

Another option is that the killer was much less organised, and suffering from mental illness. The sort of manic offender who didn't really care what day of the week it was, or if there were two or three people in the property.

A drug addict, incompetent burglar type is another possibility. Nothing seems to have been taken from the house, but there must be a reason why the police still acknowledge the possibility of a burglary gone seriously wrong.

 

[Sescsteve]

Yes totally bizarre. Like you say a burgler would only make a hole big enough for a hand to go through and unlock a door. Oh I didn't realise the alarm was going for 2 hours! That's even more perplexing! I'm starting to think the alarm might be the key to solving this. Like you say why didn't they turn the alarm off when it first went off? They stayed in the house quite a while after so they clearly knew the alarm was not connected to a security company. I know the other similar murder of Caroline, she had felt she was being stalked so I wonder if she had also had some sort of security alarm system recently installed??

Oh and the attempt at glass cutting..I wonder if the mark they left gave an indication of the height/build of the perpetrator?

Another thing to think about is 30 years ago the double glazed unit in the patio door would of been 6mm float glass with possibly between 12 and 16mm gap then another 6mm float glass . That would be very hard to cut a hole as especially when you cut the glass you need to break the cut from the other side of that piece of glass and of course you cant reach that as there is a gap and the other piece of glass. Now a days it would be either toughened glass which could shatter if intruder had tried to cut it or better security wise a laminated unit again 6.4mm glass tends to be laminate measurement either side . It seems to me that whoever broke in maybe thought it would be easy seeing them old films where the burglar turns up and cuts himself in . Trust me to cut a hole in glass is hard enough in 6mm plate glass in itself but why anyone thought they could do it to a double glazed unit in a patio door shows less maturity . I wonder if the clue could be someone to do with builders somewhere a long the line?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Another thing to think about is 30 years ago the double glazed unit in the patio door would of been 6mm float glass with possibly between 12 and 16mm gap then another 6mm float glass . That would be very hard to cut a hole as especially when you cut the glass you need to break the cut from the other side of that piece of glass and of course you cant reach that as there is a gap and the other piece of glass. Now a days it would be either toughened glass which could shatter if intruder had tried to cut it or better security wise a laminated unit again 6.4mm glass tends to be laminate measurement either side . It seems to me that whoever broke in maybe thought it would be easy seeing them old films where the burglar turns up and cuts himself in . Trust me to cut a hole in glass is hard enough in 6mm plate glass in itself but why anyone thought they could do it to a double glazed unit in a patio door shows less maturity . I wonder if the clue could be someone to do with builders somewhere a long the line?

Yes. I've seen people say that he cut the outer pane and then discovered that the window was double glazed, lost patience and so smashed the inner pane. I always thought that it would have been clear to him that it was double glazed. Double glazing was already common and double glazing is normally fairly obvious when you are up close.

A mystery is why Janet didn't hear the glass break and sound the alarm, or dial 999. Of course, it was a big house and Janet might have been in the shower, using a hairdryer or something. Possibly, if someone hears glass breaking, he or she might be reluctant to sound the alarm or dial 999 without investigating, in case it was an animal or the glass spontaneously breaking for some reason.

The police seem to think that the confrontation occurred in Janet's bedroom. But it is possible that Janet went downstairs, saw the intruder entering and then fled upstairs, chased by the intruder. Or she was downstairs at the time of the break in and fled upstairs, possibly just wearing a dressing gown.