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.

 

[rvlvr]

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.

This. I’m very reluctant to point the finger at Mr Obvious Suspect in most cases but you can see why police had a really good look at Tony, imo. Obviously in the days before we all had a tracking device pinging satellites in our pockets, never mind CCTV, it was much harder to accurately record someone’s movements.

The Times published an interesting article on the case by crime writer James Morton a couple of years back. In it he wrote:

The husband, who has since died, was finally cleared when he was able to establish his presence in Paris. A receptionist at the Hotel d’Isly remembered him having a row on the Saturday and he used his credit card on the Monday in Paris.

It’s a curious detail, the bit about the row. Was Tony often rowing with, or in the presence of, hotel receptionists, to the point where one would find it memorable enough to recall the time and date on which the row occurred, which just so happened to be the night his wife was being brutally murdered? It’s possible, I suppose. I think Tony’s card was also used on the Friday as well as the Sunday but presumably it could’ve been used by someone else posing as him? And that still seems to leave just enough time in between to travel back to England, then back to France again?

Wherever Janice was killed, what compelled her to leave her home on the Saturday night? There was apparently no sign of forced entry or a struggle at the Westons’ flat. Would she have opened the door to someone she didn’t know when she was home alone on a gloomy Saturday evening? Did she receive a phone call instructing her to travel somewhere? I can only imagine her leaving the flat if someone she trusted asked her to?

 

[rvlvr]

Potentially, but also not so quickly that he couldn’t make his escape first? I believe it was on the Monday that her employer raised the alarm when Janice didn’t show for work and contacted her sister, who having seen the news of a murdered woman being found near the manor, put two and two together and called police, though I can’t remember the source of that so the usual caveats apply.

Saturday night to Monday morning is a nice window of time in which to compose yourself and tie up any loose ends. Though what the business with the number plates was all about I doubt we’ll ever know, sadly.

I’ve remembered the source of the sister story, btw. Was a podcast called The Outlines. Will post the link here. Probably not an approved source but I think the rules have changed recently? Can’t verify myself what’s said in the episode but I do find The Outlines to be a very good podcast, on the whole. And there’s a transcription included too which is always helpful.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE: The Murder of Janice Weston

At around 11 o’clock in the morning on Sunday the 11th of September 1983 a man walked into an auto spares store in the little Hertfordshire town of Royston. He was white, between the ages of 25 and…

theoutlinespodcast.wordpress.com

 

[davidt]

I certainly think it pays to keep an open mind on this one.

However you look at it there are lots of unanswered questions.

I know there are differences of opinion on this thread but personally I don’t think you would deliberately choose a layby next to a busy road to commit murder. Another car may pull in at any second. The murder weapon looks like one of convenience rather than something chosen in advance. The reports say it was a car jack and not a tyre iron. That's quite an unwieldy weapon to use.

Will we ever get any answers to following.

If Janice drove there why did she do so?
Why did she leave the flat at all, let alone in such a hurry?
Was she actually killed in the layby?
What's the business with registration plates?
Why were the police so interested in TW?
If Janice was killed elsewhere where was that and why dump her 70 miles away and why not choose a more secluded location?
Was she travelling to Clopton or somewhere else?
Was the murder premeditated or something that happened spontaneously?
What happened to the missing wheel?
Why was the attack so savage?
Did Janice's car make that trip at all and why did it end up where it did.

I don't think so far its been possible to answer very much with any certainty. Unfortunately I don't think there's a great likelihood of it being solved. If TW was involved in any way he's no longer alive anyway.

 

[ctaylor]

Going back to Tony Weston's police complaints, I found this Peterborough Standard article from January 1986. He made a complaint about his treatment in custody but also made a complaint that the case was featured on Crimewatch.

Anyone here from the UK knows that Crimewatch, especially in the 1980s/1990s, was a huge hit watched by up to 14 million viewers. Most relatives and families of murder victims would be desperate to get the exposure you got from Crimewatch, yet Tony Weston complained about the excessive media attention. A strange complaint to make.

 

[davidt]

Going back to Tony Weston's police complaints, I found this Peterborough Standard article from January 1986. He made a complaint about his treatment in custody but also made a complaint that the case was featured on Crimewatch.

Anyone here from the UK knows that Crimewatch, especially in the 1980s/1990s, was a huge hit watched by up to 14 million viewers. Most relatives and families of murder victims would be desperate to get the exposure you got from Crimewatch, yet Tony Weston complained about the excessive media attention. A strange complaint to make.

Can't shake the feeling there's something odd about the whole TW situation. Recently married and your wife has been brutally slain. I've seen the Crimewatch reconstruction and I suspect everyone here has as well. It's a relatively straightforward account of what was known at the time. TW did not appear. That's his right of course. He complains of too much publicity. Then you have the police extremely interested in him. Its said they either showed or threatened to show him pictures of the crime scene and his wife's battered corpse.

I wonder, did TW have other reasons to not want publicity. Did he have any other skeletons in his closet that the police may have been aware of. Did he have his own reasons for wanting to keep a low profile? Anything to do with any previous business activities.