UK UK - Melanie Hall, 25, Bath, Somerset, 9 June 1996

[Dotta]

I find these words interesting

"Detectives now believe
the key to unlocking the case could lie in uncovering the links
the killer had to the location where she was found.

'Despite the passing of nearly 30 years since the disappearance and murder of our daughter Melanie,
we remain totally committed to finding her killer.

It is our belief
that more than one person may have knowledge of what happened to Melanie'."

'Our daughter was murdered - someone close to killer can give us justice'

The dad, mum and sister of Melanie Hall suspect more than one person may know what happened to her and are begging: 'Please come forward and help us solve this case'

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I am very sceptical of what the police say, years later, in such cases. The time to catch the killer was when Melanie disappeared. In this case the discovery of the body, so many years later, makes very little difference. The killer might be dead by now. The idea that "someone must know" who did it is weak. If someone did know, that person could also be dead now. If someone provides a name, what evidence against that named person can the police establish now? They will have the testimony of the informant, but, if the killer doesn't confess and denies everything, will that be enough? Can the police prove he did it?

Some cold cases do get solved, often because of DNA or a fingerprint. I hope this murder gets solved. But the best time to solve a murder is usually soon after it occurs.

 

[Dotta]

I am very sceptical of what the police say, years later, in such cases. The time to catch the killer was when Melanie disappeared. In this case the discovery of the body, so many years later, makes very little difference. The killer might be dead by now. The idea that "someone must know" who did it is weak. If someone did know, that person could also be dead now. If someone provides a name, what evidence against that named person can the police establish now? They will have the testimony of the informant, but, if the killer doesn't confess and denies everything, will that be enough? Can the police prove he did it?

Some cold cases do get solved, often because of DNA or a fingerprint. I hope this murder gets solved. But the best time to solve a murder is usually soon after it occurs.

There is partial DNA
(whatever that means)
on both the rope and bags.

According to reports.

 

[tes1984]

I am very sceptical of what the police say, years later, in such cases. Some cold cases do get solved, often because of DNA or a fingerprint. I hope this murder gets solved. But the best time to solve a murder is usually soon after it occurs.

I agree, but look at the Carol Morgan murder. The prime suspect (her husband) was convicted fairly recently after a historic witness came forward. Other than that witness, the case seems to have been entirely circumstantial, yet one new witness was enough to convince the CPS and then a jury.

 

[tes1984]

In 2014 the police case against a 45 year old man from Bath was rejected by the CPS.

The man would have been 26/27 when Melanie was murdered.

Presumably he is one of the 15 or so suspects being looked at by the current investigators.

 

[tes1984]

I find these words interesting

"Detectives now believe
the key to unlocking the case could lie in uncovering the links
the killer had to the location where she was found.

This wouldn't be one of my main lines of enquiry. Every day thousands of people will have driven close to where Melanie was found.

The killer could have gone to the slip road with the planned intention of dumping Melanie there, but he could just as easily have dumped her body there in a panic.

 

[Rookie D]

This wouldn't be one of my main lines of enquiry. Every day thousands of people will have driven close to where Melanie was found.

The killer could have gone to the slip road with the planned intention of dumping Melanie there, but he could just as easily have dumped her body there in a panic.

I think you make a very important point here.

It is virtually impossible to distinguish whether the man who deposited Melanie's body did so in a hurry, or had pre-planned the location of the deposition site.

However, I also think it's important to distinguish between 3 key factors;

How long he may have been at the site
How long it took him to choose that particular spot
How long he had spent with Melanie's body post mortem

The first 2 are known only to the killer himself and difficult to decipher.
However, trying to determine how long he may have spent with Melanie post mortem is something that we can reasonably certain about.
He used bin bags and then used rope to tie and secure the body.

That alone would have taken some time.

If Melanie's body had just been dumped without the bin bags and rope, then the killer could have just dumped her body straight from his vehicle after having just murdered her.
However, the killer took some time to almost prepare her body to be deposited.

It's interesting how Melanie wasn't found by a road side with the bin bags or rope, or in a ditch somewhere. Instead the killer chose to conceal her remains rather than just deposit her out in the open for all to see.


The fact that the killer took some time to prepare the body for concealment at a hidden deposition site close to the road, would imply that the killer really didn't want Melanie to be found. This is supported by the head and facial injuries inflicted on Melanie.

IMO, this may suggest that the man who murdered Melanie was known to her in some capacity. Otherwise, the killer has gone to great lengths to conceal the body in hidden undergrowth, yet still felt the need to use bin bags and rope in addition to that.

The big question for me is this;

Did Melanie ever leave the killer's car alive, or was she murdered in the car and then taken straight to the deposition site straight from his car? If the latter, then the bin bags and rope were already in his car, and he had pre-planned to murder someone that night.

But of course, the other option is that the killer didn't drive a car, but instead may have driven a van.

If he drove a van, then he could have hidden Melanie's body in the back and then had the time and private space to murder her, put her in bin bags and then use rope to secure the body, all in the comfort and privacy of his own van.

I find it difficult to believe that the killer murdered Melanie after abducting her in a car, and her not having left the vehicle to be placed in the bin bags and tied with rope, as this would surely have required more physical space to accomplish this.

So the killer either needed a vehicle with space and concealment; like a van, or he had a bolt hole somewhere, that he could then take his time to use the bin bags and rope.

Ultimately, by choosing to use bin bags and roper, the killer gives us certain clues as to his mindset in terms of how long he spent with his victim's body before he then deposits her remains.

There is also a possibility that he took Melanie alive and well to the deposition site, and then murdered her where she was later found. However, this seems very unlikely, because why then use the bin bags and rope, and why take a risk of Melanie being seen on the slip road get out of the car?

IMO, it seems likely that Melanie was abducted by being hit and then thrown into to back of a van. And because a full set of Ford keys were found, it is even more likely that the van was a Ford.

A Ford van possibly being a work van belonging to a builder, roofer, mechanic etc...


Lots to ponder

 

[Rookie D]

One thing to note about those Ford keys found close to the body;

The red master key was used specifically as a programming key for any new black keys.
The 2 black keys found with the red master key may have been the 2 original black keys, but the killer had used the red master key to program 2 new black keys that he then used to drive the vehicle; meaning the 2 black keys found with the red key were defunct and presumably untraceable because they were no longer linked with a vehicle. However, the down side to doing this would be if he then lost the new black keys, because he wouldn't then be able to program any new keys without having the red master key.
Interestingly, there was a way to circumvent that in the event that a red master key was lost. This wouldn't have been known to the average car driver, and the killer would have needed to have invested the help of a specialist who knew how to get around the lost red master key problem. Unless of course, the killer was that specialist and he already knew that he didn't need the red master key anyway.

I think that IF the killer did indeed leave those keys, he did so on the assumption that the police wouldn't consider that it was in a way; a double bluff. The keys had belonged to the killer, but the killer knew that the black keys were defunct and that the red master key was needed anyway. But at face value, it would seem almost stupid for a killer to leave his own car keys, because then how did he drive off after he dumped the body?

I think the keys were used to taunt the police if ever the body was ever found.

It would be interesting to know if Melanie or anyone in her circle of friends and acquaintances were Ford mechanics or builders etc... Were there any building renovations going on at her flat, or any of her friends or acquaintances residencies that required workmen who then happened to drive a Ford van?

It does make me wonder if the police have ever questioned those involved with the local Ford dealer/garage located within relatively close proximity to the deposition site, because if I was running the case, I would consider that a viable place to pursue a line of inquiry.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that detectives simply don't consider these "outside the box" hypotheses, because they either don't have the resources to, or their commanding officer chooses to go in a different direction. It's frustrating because there are no doubt scores and scores of currently unsolved cold cases that are just sitting there collecting dust on a shelf, that could be relatively easy to solve with fresh eyes and more diverse mindsets.

It is also the case that many cold cases remain unsolved purely because of the official lack of evidence against someone who everyone knows is the culprit.

Frustratingly, knowledge and certainty mean nothing without evidence.