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

[rvlvr]

Without identifying a crime scene it will remain non-existent. There was no evidence of a crime in the lay-by. Witness accounts of 'a car similar to Janice's' doesn't mean it was her car. How many of the witnesses came forward after seeing pictures of the actual car in the papers? The only physical evidence is her car parked in London with her blood on the inside of the windscreen and her body found dumped by a lay-by. Despite anniversary appeals, there doesn't appear to be any new forensic evidence in this case that we know of.

I think the purchase of the new tyre is crucial, as is the grease under her fingernails, the missing tyre, and the tyre iron murder weapon. They all suggest an auto garage to me as the most likely murder scene. Someone with control of such a facility, closed Saturday afternoon and Sunday, would have ample time to move the body, then move the car, and clean up the scene before opening on Monday.

Some very fair points here, definitely. Did police discourage people from coming forward with potential sightings if these sightings didn’t seem to fit? Someone who noticed something funny happening somewhere in London might not have thought it relevant to the discovery of a woman’s body in Northamptonshire, for instance. FWIW I do think police joined the dots correctly but perhaps reconstructing Janice’s movements in a very concrete way on Crimewatch was a mistake.

The issue for me if she wasn’t killed in a fit of rage in the lay-by is, why not kill her at the London flat? How does Janice get from there to a garage? Does someone call at the flat and abduct her? Maybe someone has a key? Or is she phoned by someone she trusts and asked to go to this secondary location? Surely there was a less convoluted way to have Janice bumped off - eg kill her at the flat then stage the scene to look like a burglary gone wrong?

 

[davidt]

Some very fair points here, definitely. Did police discourage people from coming forward with potential sightings if these sightings didn’t seem to fit? Someone who noticed something funny happening somewhere in London might not have thought it relevant to the discovery of a woman’s body in Northamptonshire, for instance. FWIW I do think police joined the dots correctly but perhaps reconstructing Janice’s movements in a very concrete way on Crimewatch was a mistake.

The issue for me if she wasn’t killed in a fit of rage in the lay-by is, why not kill her at the London flat? How does Janice get from there to a garage? Does someone call at the flat and abduct her? Maybe someone has a key? Or is she phoned by someone she trusts and asked to go to this secondary location? Surely there was a less convoluted way to have Janice bumped off - eg kill her at the flat then stage the scene to look like a burglary gone wrong?

I've been reading around to see if there's anything on record saying if either the police had anything specific to indicate where Janice was killed or if they considered any other possible scenarios. I can't really find anything at all tbh. There just seems to be an assumption that was the case in all the reports. One thing that foes occur to me is that I can't imagine anyone wanting to hang around in a layby any longer than necessary. Another car may pull in at any moment. Reports say Janice was struck 11 times. So it was a sustained and brutal attack.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

According to the newspaper cuttings, police seem certain that Janice was killed in that layby. Nobody would plan to kill someone there, as it was right next to the dual carriageway. It was very visible and anybody could have pulled in there at any time.

Huntingdon station was very close by. Intercity 125 trains picked up there and took 30 minutes to reach Kings Cross. The killer could have driven there, dumped the car and caught a train with little chance of the police catching him driving Janice's car.

 

[tes1984]

According to the newspaper cuttings, police seem certain that Janice was killed in that layby. Nobody would plan to kill someone there, as it was right next to the dual carriageway. It was very visible and anybody could have pulled in there at any time.

Huntingdon station was very close by. Intercity 125 trains picked up there and took 30 minutes to reach Kings Cross. The killer could have driven there, dumped the car and caught a train with little chance of the police catching him driving Janice's car.

There are lots of potential points against the scenario that Janice was killed in London, but if she was killed in the lay by, then where was the car for the next twelve or so hours?

The police think the car was left in Camden at some point after Sunday lunchtime, so where was the car between the time of the murder and the time it was left parked up?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

where was the car between the time of the murder and the time it was left parked up?

If the person who bought the duplicate registration plates was the murderer, he stayed somewhere in the area.

Why buy those duplicate plates? There were no ANPR cameras or speed cameras back then. Janice's car was a rare one too. Although Royston is fairly near to the A1, it is south of the lay by and to get there you would have needed to go cross country or go south and then get onto the A505 and head north east. There are nearer places to get registration plates. Or had the killer tried those places and found no car parts shops open on a Sunday morning?

 

[rvlvr]

Perhaps a combination of alcohol and adrenaline wearing off (and possibly rain creating difficult driving conditions) meant he decided to lay low until the morning? Especially if he had nowhere he could return to that night without generating suspicion?

 

[tes1984]

One theory is that Janice was murdered because of her work involving data protection.

I'm not sure about this. When Shani Warren was murdered in 1987, a lot of people thought it was connected to her working for Marconi.

Marconi was a company involved in sensitive defence projects, and more than a few employees died in mysterious ways in the mid to late 80s.

It turned out though that Shani wasn't killed by government assassins, who staged her death as a suicide. The conspiracy theorists were wrong and Shani was in fact the victim of a random, lunatic list murderer called Donald Robertson.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Online, as in so many cases, many people say it "must have been the husband". A video I saw

said that he had a solid alibi: a hotel employee remembered him being in the hotel at a crucial time, he used his credit card twice at relevant times and he showed people around the chateau too. In such cases, the people, who say it must have been the husband, say he used a hitman. How would this explain the flat tyre and the lay by murder?

I wouldn't have the first idea how to recruit a hitman. If you go around asking people if they will murder someone for you, how many people would you need to ask and won't one of these people tell the police?

If you have spent years in prison, you might know suitable people, desperate for money. Janice's husband doesn't seem to have moved in those circles.

 

[tes1984]

I wouldn't have the first idea how to recruit a hitman. If you go around asking people if they will murder someone for you, how many people would you need to ask and won't one of these people tell the police?

If you have spent years in prison, you might know suitable people, desperate for money. Janice's husband doesn't seem to have moved in those circles.

In the Carol Morgan case, her husband Allen apparently recruited a hitman by asking around in local pubs, and he got away with it for over forty years.

Allen Morgan ran a corner shop, and didn't know any suitable people, but I guess sometimes where there's a will, there's a way. Talking of wills, Carol Morgan like Janice had left most of her estate to her husband.

TW was described as a millionaire property developer, financier and financial adviser. All industries which can attract dodgy characters. I get what you mean about the risk of recruiting a hitman, but perhaps he knew someone, who knew someone?

 

[tes1984]

In such cases, the people, who say it must have been the husband, say he used a hitman. How would this explain the flat tyre and the lay by murder?

A hitman scenario is difficult to explain. Perhaps the plan is to take her to Clopton and kill her there. She uses the flat tyre as an attempt to escape?

If the husband did it, then he heads back to London from France. He either surprises Janice, and she's not particularly delighted, or she's half expecting him, and keeps looking out the window at work in case her turns up. Or she's suspicious he'll return home, because he's so keen for her to get the car fully roadworthy that day.

When he returns home, he tells Janice they are going to Clopton. She's not happy but agrees to accompany him. She takes an overnight bag and her purse. No need to take her cheque book or cards, as he'll pay for most things. She also takes the wine and snacks she's started, plus some bread as there's no food at the country house. The honeymoon period of their relationship is over, so she packs a work book to read that night. She has planned to work on her book that weekend so she's actually somewhat annoyed at the interruption.

They set off, hit bad traffic and bad weather, and tempers are on edge. When the car breaks down and he struggles to change the tyre, she says something and it's the final straw for him. He kills her in a sudden fit of fury with the tyre iron he's holding. It's personal so he smashes her face in.

After the murder, he goes into self preservation mode. Gets to a phone box, calls in a massive favour or two from trusted friends or brother masons, and is back in France within 18 hours.