UK UK- Joy Hewer, 50, Teacher/church volunteer, sexually assaulted & fatally stabbed in chest, apartment set on fire, Walthamstow, 17 Oct.1995 *REWARD*

[tes1984]

If Joy was murdered at say 22.50, that would mean the killer would have to hang around for almost half an hour then make the call to the Police. If you had just killed someone you would have to be a very cool customer to do that.

Your natural instinct would be to get as far away from the scene of the crime as quickly as possible,imo,but it certainly can't be ruled out.

The killer seems to have spent quite a long time in the flat, before and after the murder.

Joy had two autopsies and both coroners said she died from multiple injuries. She had ligature marks around her neck, so the killer probably tried to strangle her.

The coroners don't seem to have confirmed if Joy was raped. A lot of the early newspaper reports say she was raped, but in later years the reports say she was sexually assaulted.

The autopsies confirmed (from the lack of smoke in her lungs) that Joy was already dead when the fires were started.

 

[Konstantin]

Appeal 30 years after teacher’s murder

Joy Hewer was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death in her own home.

news.met.police.uk

Just to note that the latest police press release/ announcement on Joy's murder states that the 999 caller reported seeing smoke (so not flames) coming out of a flat in the block - that turned out, of course, to be Joy's flat. The fires are described as "smouldering" which makes sense both in terms of the 999 caller seeing smoke and the fires actually not destroying much.

I'd say the fires were started in a hurry and perhaps a panic and were more smoke than fire as it were.

 

[Rookie D]

Appeal 30 years after teacher’s murder

Joy Hewer was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death in her own home.

news.met.police.uk

Just to note that the latest police press release/ announcement on Joy's murder states that the 999 caller reported seeing smoke (so not flames) coming out of a flat in the block - that turned out, of course, to be Joy's flat. The fires are described as "smouldering" which makes sense both in terms of the 999 caller seeing smoke and the fires actually not destroying much.

I'd say the fires were started in a hurry and perhaps a panic and were more smoke than fire as it were.

It doesn't surprise me that the latest official police/press release still can't get their facts correct.

At no point during the entire 2mins 33sec phone call to emergency services does the man mention seeing "smoke."

He clearly says "flames."


Whether he meant to say "smoke," but accidentally said "flames," is another matter entirely.

 

[Konstantin]

It doesn't surprise me that the latest official police/press release still can't get their facts correct.

At no point during the entire 2mins 33sec phone call to emergency services does the man mention seeing "smoke."

He clearly says "flames."


Whether he meant to say "smoke," but accidentally said "flames," is another matter entirely.

That is interesting. I wonder if, because it was a "smouldering fire", the Met assumed perhaps that the caller could not have seen flames but would have seen smoke? I am guessing here of course. Or a lazy press release from decades later that didn't connect the dots?

The fire really cannot have taken hold in terms of flames because we know that Joy's body was undamaged enough to complete a proper post mortem, find cause of death, and find a full DNA profile. The reports say she was sexually assaulted rather than raped so that does point to - though again we have no real idea and this could be the police holding back information - the DNA profile not being obtained from semen found inside Joy (sorry, that is really horrible).
If the killer set the fires to destroy evidence, which makes sense, and did so in haste before he made a run for it, I lean toward this NOT being the 999 caller, because the killer would want the fire to take hold and destroy any clues about what happened and who did it. If he did call it in he risked getting caught.

We can hypothesize that the 999 caller, if he was innocent, did not want to come forward because he might end up as a suspect himself. Or perhaps he was up to no good in other ways and didn't want that coming out. Or just on his way home from somewhere and he had told his wife he was somewhere else. Lots of reasons. People don't trust the police.

 

[Rookie D]

Apparently the Caretaker of the building committed "suicide" not long after the murder.

So, the man with overall responsibility of the building's maintenance, in which a woman is brutally murdered, then chooses to take his own life shortly afterwards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that all seems a little too convenient.

He was officially ruled out as the killer.

It makes me wonder whether he really did take his own life, or whether there were external forces at play?

I have been trying to find out his name and a description, as it would be rather odd if he turned out to have been a 6ft 4" black male, who happened to make a 999 call that night.

It's clear that the caller knew the name of the flats, and so whether he did or didn't know the street names, the fact he certainly knew the name of the flats, indicates that he was likely to have known more than he let on in terms of the building itself.

Was the man who made the 999 call the caretaker who later committed "suicide?"

Worth a little conjectural supposition at the very least.

 

[GTB72]

Having listened to the 999 call again and looked more closely at the map, I just don't think the guy who made the call is the killer.

He sounds so discombobulated and unsure of himself that he even has to ask someone at the bus stop which street he is on. If he's the killer then it is the acting performance of a lifetime.

The killer, if they are not someone who stayed in the flats, would have to have known the way there so in all likelihood would know the street that St David's Court was on.

Imo, this was a guy driving along Forest Road towards Woodford and Whips Cross and has noticed flames/smoke up at Joy's window and on driving past saw the name of the building was St David's Court and stopped and made the call.

On today's maps the name St David's Court is clearly on the front of the building and maybe it was the same in 1995 and that's why the driver knew the name of the building but little else.

The Junction he is referring to is where Forest Road meets Fulbourne Road and Wood St.

If you take a left from Forest Road onto Fulbourne Road then that leads to the North Circular Road. Turn right, then left onto Winchester Road and you are virtually in Chingford.

Imo, the caller is trying to say that the fire is near the Wood St junction and the road to Chingford but since he is just passing through and doesn't know a great deal about the surrounding area it comes out all garbled.
Apologies for the long post.

 

[rvlvr]

Completely agree. It’s quite common in my experience for flats to display the building name fairly prominently, more prominently than street signs often are. Also even if you’re familiar with your area you might not know road names as well as you do landmarks. My wife could give you directions based on where the big Asda is but couldn’t for the life of her tell you what the road is called that it’s located on.

The caller definitely says flames too, as @Rookie D rightly points out. Haven’t had time to read the last couple of pages of the thread properly so apologies if it’s been linked to recently but you can listen to the call here:

Listen to 999 call made on night school teacher was stabbed to death before house was torched

To mark the 20th anniversary of Joy Hewer's death her family have made a renewed appeal for information that might finally catch her killer

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[GTB72]

What are people's thoughts on the two screenshots here? The first is the CCTV image of the alleged killer entering St David's Court at 22.31 according to the Met Police. I see someone going down at a set of steep stairs.

The second is the stairway up to St David's Court in modern day times.

Surely the Police haven't conflated someone leaving the building with someone entering which would mean the man on the CCTV has nothing to do with the murder?

The only logical conclusion is that once you enter the building, you have to go down a set of stairs to get to the main lobby.

Sorry, just trying to think outside the box.

 

[Rookie D]

What are people's thoughts on the two screenshots here? The first is the CCTV image of the alleged killer entering St David's Court at 22.31 according to the Met Police. I see someone going down at a set of steep stairs.

The second is the stairway up to St David's Court in modern day times.

Surely the Police haven't conflated someone leaving the building with someone entering which would mean the man on the CCTV has nothing to do with the murder?

The only logical conclusion is that once you enter the building, you have to go down a set of stairs to get to the main lobby.

Sorry, just trying to think outside the box.

Just to confirm that the entrance to the flats isn't the door you can see in image 2 with ST David's Court written above it.

The actual entrance that can be seen in the CCCTV still of the man seen entering, is located around the side of the doors you can see in image 2

In other words, to get into the flats, you need to walk up the stairs and head slightly to your left as you reach the top and then enter the building through the actual main entrance door that is located on your right.
If you look at the still frame of the man caught on the camera at 22.31pm, the other (Non entrance) door at the top of the stairs can be seen to the top right of the image.

So after he walked up the main stairs, he walked to his left and around the side of the entrance hall and then turned to his right to enter the building.

The stairs face north to south, while the entrance door faces east. The man seen on CCTV is facing west.

Hope that makes sense sorry

 

[GTB72]

Just to confirm that the entrance to the flats isn't the door you can see in image 2 with ST David's Court written above it.

The actual entrance that can be seen in the CCCTV still of the man seen entering, is located around the side of the doors you can see in image 2

In other words, to get into the flats, you need to walk up the stairs and head slightly to your left as you reach the top and then enter the building through the actual main entrance door that is located on your right.
If you look at the still frame of the man caught on the camera at 22.31pm, the other (Non entrance) door at the top of the stairs can be seen to the top right of the image.

So after he walked up the main stairs, he walked to his left and around the side of the entrance hall and then turned to his right to enter the building.

The stairs face north to south, while the entrance door faces east. The man seen on CCTV is facing west.

Hope that makes sense sorry

Thanks. Seems a pretty complicated layout but it was probably built in the 60's so that might explain it.

 

[tes1984]

Is the man actually entering the building? It's hard to tell from that one image.

 

[GTB72]

Is the man actually entering the building? It's hard to tell from that one image.

Indeed. According to the Met Police the CCTV is of someone entering the building.

Appeal 30 years after teacher’s murder

Joy Hewer was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death in her own home.

news.met.police.uk

 

[tes1984]

If the CCTV man is the killer, then it's perhaps telling that he allows himself to be seen anywhere near the camera. A lack of recent, local knowledge?

The back door to the block had been vandalised a few days before Joy's murder. The CCTV camera there was also vandalised, so potentially people could get in and out of the block, without needing to be buzzed in, and without being seen on camera.

 

[Rookie D]

There had also been some reports of recent arson attempts at the flats.

I'd need to recheck my source for that, but it's certainly true.

 

[Rookie D]

If the CCTV man is the killer, then it's perhaps telling that he allows himself to be seen anywhere near the camera. A lack of recent, local knowledge?

The back door to the block had been vandalised a few days before Joy's murder. The CCTV camera there was also vandalised, so potentially people could get in and out of the block, without needing to be buzzed in, and without being seen on camera.

Could the rear doors to the building have been for exit purposes only?

So those who needed to get out, could get out, but those who wanted access to the building had to go around to the front entrance?

 

[tes1984]

Indeed. According to the Met Police the CCTV is of someone entering the building.

Appeal 30 years after teacher’s murder

Joy Hewer was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death in her own home.

news.met.police.uk

So he must leave via the back exit, where the CCTV isn't working.. otherwise wouldn't they have better footage of him if he'd left via the front exit?

Or didn't the front CCTV camera capture faces as people left the building?

 

[tes1984]

Could the rear doors to the building have been for exit purposes only?

So those who needed to get out, could get out, but those who wanted access to the building had to go around to the front entrance?

That was how it usually was, but apparently the door was damaged, so people might have been able to enter the building.

 

[GTB72]

So he must leave via the back exit, where the CCTV isn't working.. otherwise wouldn't they have better footage of him if he'd left via the front exit?

Or didn't the front CCTV camera capture faces as people left the building?

Who knows? I used to visit a friend on the 10th floor of a 22 storey block and he used to buzz me in. He actually could see on his internal intercom who was calling.

However, he showed me the back door on the ground floor which he said was always open and said that was the way he entered and exited the building to avoid the prying eyes of CCTV.

It might well be that the killer did exactly the same due to prior knowledge or he got lucky and stumbled on to another exit.

 

[GTB72]

Could the rear doors to the building have been for exit purposes only?

So those who needed to get out, could get out, but those who wanted access to the building had to go around to the front entrance?

Never heard of that before but I suppose it can't be ruled out.

 

[GTB72]

If the killer could enter and exit the building then why would he even be caught on CCTV at all?

The answer in my opinion is that Joy would be more reluctant to answer her door at that time even to someone she knew if they hadn't buzzed her up.

Imo, Joy knew her killer and buzzed him into the building. Perhaps his intention was to talk to her not kill her. Something went wrong and he killed her then went out the back door.