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

[Professor Moriarty]

Carolanne Jackson had a safe, but she dealt in antique jewellery. She probably kept expensive jewellery in the safe and cash from buying and selling. Why would anyone expect a safe, holding valuable stuff or a lot of money, in Janet's house? Most burglars want to get out quickly and hanging around after murder is very odd.

(I just read extracts from Paul Britton's book. He referred to the front door as having a chain. I had speculated that if the patio glass was broken from the inside (and not used for entry to the house) the intruder might have walked in the door using a copied key. I suppose if you open a door with a key chain on, you could perhaps reach in and undo it, as the keychain is there so that the home owner can just open the door a little to see who is at the door and shut the door on that person if they are unwelcome:it may be possible to undo the chain if there is no one on the other side pushing the door shut. But this is all very odd.)

 

[rvlvr]

Carolanne Jackson had a safe, but she dealt in antique jewellery. She probably kept expensive jewellery in the safe and cash from buying and selling. Why would anyone expect a safe, holding valuable stuff or a lot of money, in Janet's house? Most burglars want to get out quickly and hanging around after murder is very odd.

I’m not sold on the burglary theory but on a superficial level the Browns were a well off family living in a big house and the husband worked in Switzerland, if this was all you knew about them then you might assume they’d have something in there worth stealing, I guess. I think people did keep more cash around in the 90s and as the Browns had builders working on the property perhaps a burglar thought they might have cash to hand with which to pay them.

That’s interesting re the chain, I’ve never lived in a property with a chain but I’ve always wondered if it was possible to slip a hand through the door and remove one. I know Roxanne was supposed to be away until the next day but would Janet have left the chain off in case she came home early for some reason?

 

[Konstantin]

I’m not sold on the burglary theory

The burglary theory makes the least sense to me. Burglars don't usually like robbing a house with someone inside, it's far to risky. And what happened to JB suggests torture and a sexual element, which was likely the primary motivation here. There are elements that seem personal about it, somehow, so I wonder whether the killer actually knew Janet in some way or she represented someone "special" to him.

Incidentally, I am signed up to "watch" this thread yet I never got any notifications that there had been new posts, the same with some other threads. Has anyone else experienced that?

 

[dotr]

The burglary theory makes the least sense to me. Burglars don't usually like robbing a house with someone inside, it's far to risky. And what happened to JB suggests torture and a sexual element, which was likely the primary motivation here. There are elements that seem personal about it, somehow, so I wonder whether the killer actually knew Janet in some way or she represented someone "special" to him.

Incidentally, I am signed up to "watch" this thread yet I never got any notifications that there had been new posts, the same with some other threads. Has anyone else experienced that?

Unsure, but answer might be found here.

Thread 'Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)'

Nov 13, 2018

This post contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Each question below links to a post in the thread containing the answer. Posts may be updated from time to time as the site evolves or as we come across more to share.

Forum - Basics

• Where do I start? Are there any rules I should know?
• What is the difference between a post, thread, forum, etc.?
• How do I delete a post that I drafted but no longer need?
• How do I edit or delete what I posted?
• How and when should I report a post?
• How do I follow a thread...

• Whiskers16
• Replies: 59
• Forum: Welcome To Websleuths

• 

 

[rvlvr]

The burglary theory makes the least sense to me. Burglars don't usually like robbing a house with someone inside, it's far to risky. And what happened to JB suggests torture and a sexual element, which was likely the primary motivation here. There are elements that seem personal about it, somehow, so I wonder whether the killer actually knew Janet in some way or she represented someone "special" to him.

Incidentally, I am signed up to "watch" this thread yet I never got any notifications that there had been new posts, the same with some other threads. Has anyone else experienced that?

I agree re your theory, that would be the best interpretation of the evidence imo.

Though to labour the burglary point further, it’s true a burglar would normally want to burgle an empty house, but if they thought they’d need to find a safe (presumably with some sort of code) or a stash of cash or antiques then they might’ve thought they’d need the homeowner present. It’s not unheard of for occupants of homes being burgled to be tied up, tortured, etc.

AIUI in theory the Browns’ property could’ve been occupied by at least four people - Janet and her husband, Roxanne, and the brother, had he been home from university. But the intruder struck when Janet was alone and of the four she was surely the easiest to overpower. If she was upstairs getting ready for bed then she was also fairly vulnerable. Did the intruder just get lucky or was this actually a pretty well thought out crime, up until the minute they demanded something of Janet she couldn’t actually give them?

 

[Konstantin]

Though to labour the burglary point further, it’s true a burglar would normally want to burgle an empty house, but if they thought they’d need to find a safe (presumably with some sort of code) or a stash of cash or antiques then they might’ve thought they’d need the homeowner present. It’s not unheard of for occupants of homes being burgled to be tied up, tortured, etc.

For that to be the case, would you not expect there to be more than one attacker? How would it play out if that were the case?

I think the murder is just too brutal for it to have been motivated primarily by robbery and if it was a hot prowl burglary where the attacker thought that Janet had knowledge of a safe or stash of valuables - it really seems she didn't, so either the intelligence the attacker had was wrong, or they were just there on spec, thinking that big house = stash/safe. It's quite a large risk to take. And a very violent outcome.

The handcuffs, which IIRC Janet's husband could not recall if they were something that were already present in the house (!) also point to some sort of sexual motive, something ritualistic almost. There was no evidence of sexual assault but the attacker could have wanted to and found he couldn't in the moment. Or he got off on the torture and humiliation.

If this was an offender who picked Janet at sort of random, did he not strike again? Was this murder enough for him or did something happen to stop him? The DNA profile not producing any hits in the police databases do point to this not being a repeat offender.

 

[Deadbeat]

I think the murder is just too brutal for it to have been motivated primarily by robbery and if it was a hot prowl burglary where the attacker thought that Janet had knowledge of a safe or stash of valuables - it really seems she didn't,

Could it be that it WAS a thief who grew more and more violent towards her because he wrongly felt she was withholding information? He was perhaps convinced she had a safe or stash of valuables and became angry when he felt he was being lied to?

It makes me think of the Alan Wood case where he was tortured for PIN numbers and eventually killed, possibly because they thought he was the manager of a local Sainsbury’s and had the keys, he didn’t. (mistaken identity).

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Could it be that it WAS a thief who grew more and more violent towards her because he wrongly felt she was withholding information? He was perhaps convinced she had a safe or stash of valuables and became angry when he felt he was being lied to?

It makes me think of the Alan Wood case where he was tortured for PIN numbers and eventually killed, possibly because they thought he was the manager of a local Sainsbury’s and had the keys, he didn’t. (mistaken identity).

Janet was wearing jewellery when found, although she had been in bed or at least preparing to go to bed. It is thought that the killer made her put it on. The pathologist (?) also thought that the killer had laid on top of Janet when she was wearing handcuffs, making marks on her back. Although Janet had been punched in the face, it wasn't said that she had been tortured. A closer parallel would be Carolanne Jackson, who did have a safe, but she was in the jewellery business and seems to have worked from home, so a killer who knew that would suspect that she would have valuables at home.

 

[tes1984]

Although Janet had been punched in the face, it wasn't said that she had been tortured.

The way Janet's head was taped suggests psychological torture to me. She would have slowly suffocated to death, even if she hadn't been bludgeoned.

The only other explanation I can really think of is that he taped her head and face to try and minimise blood splatter, which would also involve psychological torture as Janet realises what he's about to do.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The way Janet's head was taped suggests psychological torture to me. She would have slowly suffocated to death, even if she hadn't been bludgeoned.

The only other explanation I can really think of is that he taped her head and face to try and minimise blood splatter, which would also involve psychological torture as Janet realises what he's about to do.

Do you think the intruder did this to Janet to get information, such as the whereabouts of a safe, or simply because he was a sadist/pervert?

Possibly he wore a mask and if Janet had provided details of a safe he would have just robbed the safe and simply left Janet tied up. But he seems to have stayed in the house for a long time after killing her. Why would he do that? Not much point in searching for a safe if the home owner has said there isn't one and, even if you find one, you don't have a combination or key. It would be a disaster for a criminal to be risk being convicted of murder after invading a house just in the hope that there might be a safe. The searching might have taken place before the murder, but the police seem to think he stayed in the house for some time after the murder.

 

[tes1984]

Do you think the intruder did this to Janet to get information, such as the whereabouts of a safe, or simply because he was a sadist/pervert?

I think the latter option is probably the most likely, although I don't think we should rule anything out. You'd think the police would have said if there was a safe, or large amounts of cash to pay builders etc, but they often hold all sorts of things back for tactical reasons.

Talking of safes, do we really believe that the police were unable to open Carolanne Jackson's safe? I find this difficult to believe myself. The police usually have expert contacts (security experts and retired crooks) to help in such situations.

 

[tes1984]

Thames Valley Police have taken around 1,000 DNA swabs in the past six years. That's around 3 swabs a week, which isn't really good enough IMO, although to be fair there may be financial or political reasons, as is often the case with historical crimes.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I think they must have got the safe open. The safe manufacturer might have been able to help too. Maybe the army would do a small controlled explosion to help out and because they have to train. But the police might have just said it wasn't necessary for the investigation and that it was the family's problem.

I realise that the police don't provide a running commentary on investigations and also don't disclose things for good reasons, but in the case of Janet Brown I wonder if they have made any progress. As things are going, they will reach the point where the assumption will be that the killer is dead and there won't be much point in continuing. In the case of Carolanne Jackson, as far as we know, the police have nothing to go on and have given up. They might do a review occasionally, but we hear nothing.

I can see that men who had lived in Radnage at the relevant time would agree to be swabbed out of concern to help and they would know that if they didn't agree they would be the object of scrutiny. But what about Chinnor and Stokenchurch? Would police attempt to swab men there and trace those who had moved away before the police got the DNA? People said in this thread that criminals tend to operate close to home. But that isn't always the case and surely the police have swabbed all men who lived in Radnage at the time, having traced those who moved away. How far can police spread the net of DNA testing?

 

[tigerlily96]

The burglary theory makes the least sense to me. Burglars don't usually like robbing a house with someone inside, it's far to risky. And what happened to JB suggests torture and a sexual element, which was likely the primary motivation here. There are elements that seem personal about it, somehow, so I wonder whether the killer actually knew Janet in some way or she represented someone "special" to him.

Incidentally, I am signed up to "watch" this thread yet I never got any notifications that there had been new posts, the same with some other threads. Has anyone else experienced that?

Just catching up as I too didn’t get notifications