UK UK - Janice Weston, 36, Murdered, A1 Layby, Brampton, Cambs. / London, 10 September 1983

[tes1984]

The blood on the windscreen information was from The Evening Standard in April 1984.

Janice's husband was questioned by police for more than two days, but the CPS decided in March 1984 that no action was to be taken against him.

 

[Westchester76]

The blood on the windscreen information was from The Evening Standard in April 1984.

Janice's husband was questioned by police for more than two days, but the CPS decided in March 1984 that no action was to be taken against him.

The police believed the husband was involved but didn't have the evidence. He had (it would seem) a rock solid alibi being in France. OK, he had a motive (financial) but was a rich man already. The police must of had further information (whether they could prove it or not) to suspect the husband, which has probably never been released.

 

[tes1984]

The police believed the husband was involved but didn't have the evidence. He had (it would seem) a rock solid alibi being in France. OK, he had a motive (financial) but was a rich man already. The police must of had further information (whether they could prove it or not) to suspect the husband, which has probably never been released.

Yeah the police definitely suspected the husband. I guess it's common practice for the cops to suspect the spouse in such a murder though.

Apparently Tony Weston had 36 hours unaccounted for in France. You would think (if he was behind the murder) that he would have used his credit card during this period to prove he was definitely not in the country.

I'm not sure how wealthy TW was in his own right. I doubt he had wealth like Janice, or similar future earning potential, but I might be completely wrong.

 

[davidt]

Meant to comment on this for some time.

It's certainly a quite baffling case. I dint know if this recent documentary has already been linked 13 - Janice Weston - The Crime Portal apologies if it has. Seems to give a decent overview of the case.

One of the bizarre parts is the business of someone walking in to a car accessory shop the morning after the murder not very far away and asking for licence plates to be made up that matched Janice's car. One possible explanation suggested, that I read elsewhere possibly has some merit. If more than one person was involved with the murder could it have been some sort of miscommunication? Could someone have been told to get a set of fake plates that could be attached to Janice's car to make it less conspicuous if anyone was looking for it. Instead someone got the wrong end of the stick and orders plates with the same registration number. That does make some sort of sense. Its difficult to understand why else anyone would want to risk drawing attention to themselves otherwise.

Could anyone expand on the overnight bag? I believe one may have been in her car? Seems to be omitted from some reports.

Also I agree with earlier posts that the police certainly had more than a passing interest in her husband. Doesn't seem to be very much information about them as a couple. I know they were married about a year and it was her first marriage and his second. In terms of anything else as a couple there doesn't seem much known.

 

[tes1984]

Perhaps the number plates make sense if an original plate was damaged.
Maybe the killer needs to get back to London and doesn't want to risk being pulled over because of a damaged plate.

The problem is that it's not clear if the original plates were still on the car when it was found. Some accounts say they were, but other accounts say the opposite.

 

[davidt]

Perhaps the number plates make sense if an original plate was damaged.
Maybe the killer needs to get back to London and doesn't want to risk being pulled over because of a damaged plate.

The problem is that it's not clear if the original plates were still on the car when it was found. Some accounts say they were, but other accounts say the opposite.

Yep, that's also possible. I've found various reports differ on certain points quite often. Whoever it was presumably stayed in the general area overnight.

 

[tes1984]

Yep, that's also possible. I've found various reports differ on certain points quite often. Whoever it was presumably stayed in the general area overnight.

It seems like the killer may well know that Janice (and the car) won't be reported missing on the Saturday night.

 

[Westchester76]

It seems like the killer may well know that Janice (and the car) won't be reported missing on the Saturday night.

That's a good point. It almost certainly rules out a random killer / hitchhiker. How would they of known that nobody would report her & the car missing to the police. e.g she hadn't arrived somewhere pre-arranged. It's assummed the killer kept the car overnight, and was involved or certainly aware of the ordering the plates the next mornin. They would of known at that point the car wasn't being looked for. They may of also known her husband was abroad.

 

[tes1984]

That's a good point. It almost certainly rules out a random killer / hitchhiker. How would they of known that nobody would report her & the car missing to the police. e.g she hadn't arrived somewhere pre-arranged. It's assummed the killer kept the car overnight, and was involved or certainly aware of the ordering the plates the next mornin. They would of known at that point the car wasn't being looked for. They may of also known her husband was abroad.

I suppose a random hitchhiker could have become aware of her plans whilst they were chatting on the journey. He finds out she's heading to Clopton alone, and that her husband is in France for the weekend etc.

 

[davidt]

That's a good point. It almost certainly rules out a random killer / hitchhiker. How would they of known that nobody would report her & the car missing to the police. e.g she hadn't arrived somewhere pre-arranged. It's assummed the killer kept the car overnight, and was involved or certainly aware of the ordering the plates the next mornin. They would of known at that point the car wasn't being looked for. They may of also known her husband was abroad.

On its own I could just about buy the idea of a random stranger or hitchhiker doing it. Janice perhaps having an issue with the car and pulling in to the lay by. I think there were six witnesses reporting seeing a man changing a tyre. Something then happens and he attacks her. However the point you make is a strong one. A stranger would have no idea how quickly she would be missed.

However there's another problem. None of it goes any way to explain why Janice went out in the first place. It appears she had been part way through a meal and wine when she went out. Taking with her bread, wine, grapes?, money in a purse, keys to the Manor house they'd purchased and an overnight bag. We presume she was heading to the Manor house but cannot be certain. It was a dark miserable night and it doesn't look like she had any intention of going out that night. To me it looks like she was going to meet someone. No one has ever come forward to say they had arranged anything but I guess if it was an affair or something they wouldn't.

The attack looks quite spontaneous with the weapon used appearing to be one of convenience. Also during the original appeals the police did seem to have a level of confidence it was someone that Janice knew. I'd like to know more about her husband and his business dealings. He did seem to be the one who mentioned picking up hitchhikers in the first place.

 

[tes1984]

If Janice is meeting a lover, then it's strange that she seems to take her work documents with her. Legal files about data protection don't really suggest a romantic rendezvous with a new love.

 

[davidt]

If Janice is meeting a lover, then it's strange that she seems to take her work documents with her. Legal files about data protection don't really suggest a romantic rendezvous with a new love.

The overnight bag assuming it wasn't something she kept in the car as a habit, does tend to suggest she wasn't going home that night. Perhaps the work bits were just something to do in between something else. If she was going to be on her own for a while.

 

[davidt]

Is it correct she took her half eaten meal with her?

 

[tes1984]

Is it correct she took her half eaten meal with her?

I thought I read that the half eaten meal was left at her flat.

IIRC she just took the wine, bread and grapes with her.

 

[tes1984]

IMO it's strange that the neat and tidy Janice leaves the flat in (by her standards) such a mess, and leaves her cheque book and cards behind.

 

[Rush4087]

What an intriguing case. Lots of questions. Several of them about the tires:

I think most people, if driving to the tire shop on your spare tire to pick up a “good” tires that is ready after having been repaired, when you got to them you’d just ask then to put the good tire on and return the spare tire to the trunk/boot. If they don’t do it then, you’ll only have to do it yourself later..

So, I don’t understand why somebody would pick up their good repaired tire, just to throw it in the trunk / boot, and drive off on the same spare you drove in on

How do we know which tires were where when Janice left the tire shop?

I’m wondering if the good / repaired tire was maybe put on at the shop, and for some reason the spare was not out back in the trunk / boot

How do we know the care had a flat tire when parked at the lay by? Did witnesses see the flat tire (I know there were several who saw a man who appeared to be changing a tire, but did anybody actual see that the tire was flat)?

Did somebody from the tire shop do something to the spare tire (that was on the car) that would cause it to lose air slowly? Could the perp have been somebody who worked at the tire shop?

All jmo

 

[davidt]

I thought I read that the half eaten meal was left at her flat.

IIRC she just took the wine, bread and grapes with her.

That's what I thought but the Unseen podcast says she took it with her and I have seen this mentioned in some articles as well. Just wondered if it was true as it seems a very odd thing to do. If she was just popping around to a friends I could understand it but not when you are about to drive 70 miles or so.

 

[davidt]

What an intriguing case. Lots of questions. Several of them about the tires:

I think most people, if driving to the tire shop on your spare tire to pick up a “good” tires that is ready after having been repaired, when you got to them you’d just ask then to put the good tire on and return the spare tire to the trunk/boot. If they don’t do it then, you’ll only have to do it yourself later..

So, I don’t understand why somebody would pick up their good repaired tire, just to throw it in the trunk / boot, and drive off on the same spare you drove in on

How do we know which tires were where when Janice left the tire shop?

I’m wondering if the good / repaired tire was maybe put on at the shop, and for some reason the spare was not out back in the trunk / boot

How do we know the care had a flat tire when parked at the lay by? Did witnesses see the flat tire (I know there were several who saw a man who appeared to be changing a tire, but did anybody actual see that the tire was flat)?

Did somebody from the tire shop do something to the spare tire (that was on the car) that would cause it to lose air slowly? Could the perp have been somebody who worked at the tire shop?

All jmo

Several witnesses reported seeing a man apparently changing a tyre. However I haven't seen anything to say any of them also saw a woman present. It's also possible that this person and car may have been someone completely different. Its also a bit curious that Janice would have had the misfortune to have two punctures in a matter of days.

 

[CSIAngus]

What an intriguing case. Lots of questions. Several of them about the tires:

I think most people, if driving to the tire shop on your spare tire to pick up a “good” tires that is ready after having been repaired, when you got to them you’d just ask then to put the good tire on and return the spare tire to the trunk/boot. If they don’t do it then, you’ll only have to do it yourself later..

So, I don’t understand why somebody would pick up their good repaired tire, just to throw it in the trunk / boot, and drive off on the same spare you drove in on

How do we know which tires were where when Janice left the tire shop?

I’m wondering if the good / repaired tire was maybe put on at the shop, and for some reason the spare was not out back in the trunk / boot

How do we know the care had a flat tire when parked at the lay by? Did witnesses see the flat tire (I know there were several who saw a man who appeared to be changing a tire, but did anybody actual see that the tire was flat)?

Did somebody from the tire shop do something to the spare tire (that was on the car) that would cause it to lose air slowly? Could the perp have been somebody who worked at the tire shop?

All jmo

I've suggested in earlier posts that JW collected the tyre as she had someone else offer to fit it for her later. That person was the killer. The bottle of wine a thank you. She left her half eaten meal and cheque book and cards because she wasn't going far or for long. There was blood in the car but she could have been killed beside her car in a location not far from her home and office, and her body and murder weapon moved in another vehicle to the disposal site. Her car could have remained in London the whole time and possibly only moved a short distance from where it was found. This could have been an arranged killing with her husband conveniently out of the country with a water tight alibi. Murder by proxy.

The number plate may be a red herring. I've not read that there is physical evidence for a new plate only a recollection that it was the same registration. Perhaps it was only similar.

MOO!

 

[Rush4087]

Several witnesses reported seeing a man apparently changing a tyre. However I haven't seen anything to say any of them also saw a woman present. It's also possible that this person and car may have been someone completely different. It’s also a bit curious that Janice would have had the misfortune to have two punctures in a matter of days.

Agree.

I have read that several witnesses said they saw a man “standing by the car” and/or “a man standing with his head under the boot of the car”, but I haven’t read that anybody actually saw a man kneeling down and changing a tire.

It probably doesn’t matter (and I guess if you see somebody bent over with their head in the boot of a car, one logical assumption might be that they are changing a tire - but they could also have just been looking for a murder weapon..). Just seeking clarification on what witnesses saw. I did read that the man appeared to be fairly well dressed, whatever that means.

As you pointed out, I don’t think any of the witnesses reported seeing a second car or a woman standing nearby the car or seated or silhouetted inside the car.

Apparently there was at least a little oil or grease of some type found on Janice’s fingers, seeming to indicate that she was changing a tire. Would that mean though that she started to change the tire - but then somebody showed up and took over the job for her? Or did she and the killer change it together? But if that’s were the case, how come no witness saw two people changing a tire? It’s a bit odd .. if witnesses saw a lone man changing a tire, and she wasn’t helping, why were Janice’s hands dirty?

And I’m still not clear which tire Janice picked up from the tire repair place? If it was one of the Alfa’s four regular tires with logo on the hub, I don’t understand why the repair place didn’t put that repaired regular tire on the car for her, and put the spare in the boot. Why would you “save” the installation of the tire for some other person later? Nobody likes changing /installing a tire, and it wouldn’t have taken the shop more than a few minutes on (or with) a lift? it’s just odd

I think I read that there were chalk or grease pen markings on the inside of the tire (when the car was found in N London) - which had apparently been put there by the repair place to identify it as belonging to TW and JW’s Alfa.

I don’t know why I think the tire is such a big deal. It’s just very strange. Why would the killer take one of the tires (whether the regular or spare)? If the killer was not TW, did the killer also own an Alfa Romeo?

It can’t be just because the killer was concerned about fingerprints, as his prints would probably be on both tires to the same extent. If he could wipe down the tire he just put on the car, he could just as easily wipe down the one in the boot. And since no tire was found at the lay by, it had to - at least for some period of time - have been in the boot as he drove away (apparently turning around and heading back south).

Jmo