Genette Tate - Unsolved

 

Genette Tate vanished from her home village age 13 years, she has never been found

On August 19th 1978 a 13-year-old girl simply vanished whilst she was doing her regular paper round delivering the Exeter Express & Echo. It is now 42 years since Genette Tate disappeared and her father has recently passed away without knowing what truly happened to his little girl. As a parent, I can only begin to imagine how dreadful that must have felt. 

So let's look at the story then draw some thoughts as we go along. . .

Genette lived in the historic village of Aylesbeare, approximately 8 miles east of the city of Exeter in Devon UK. The village dates back to at least the 13th century and is by all accounts a very peaceful and pleasant area to live in. The village has a somewhat mixed population of farmers, retired and commuter families within it, it is very small and even today if you drive in one end you will be out the other end in less than 2 minutes. Once the M5 Motorway was opened in 1975 the village was just a field or two away from national road links, so a possible way for the killer to enter Aylesbeare, abduct Genette and leave just as fast.

Genette had been born in the Somerset town of Taunton but she had moved with her family into Cornwall, then on to Aylesbeare. Her mother and father had divorced and Genette was living with her dad, his partner Violet and her daughter Tania. 

The teenager's family had nicknamed her 'Ginny' and she had an amazing ability with mathematics and had a great curiosity about the world, all in all, a pretty smart girl it seems. She was a keen little worker and was doing holiday relief paper rounds on the day that she disappeared. She had left home at around 2pm, cycled through the village and met the newspaper van on the A3052 (the main Exeter to Sidmouth road) outside The White Horse Pub at around 2.50pm, something which she had done each day for the past week, as she was the relief paper girl. 19th August 1978 was to have been Genette's last day doing the round as the regular paper girl was due back.

Okay so let me pause there for just a minute and explore the last couple of sentences. . . Genette was doing a temporary job so, does this suggest that this was very much a random abduction or was it planned? I would say that I feel something like that is more likely to have been planned as opposed to just a random kidnapping. why do I say this? Well, let's think about the setting, a very rural, quiet village where I imagine pretty much everybody knew one another so abducting a young girl that could well make an awful lot of noise, struggle and may even get away and raise the alarm could be extremely risky. The only consideration here is that there is no telling what goes on in an evil monster's mind, would someone just take pot luck, a random chance abduction? Could the real target have been the regular paper girl that was away on summer holiday? 

Moving on. . .

Okay so Genette collected her papers and began her round delivering some fourteen papers before she met up with two local friends, Margaret Heavey and Tracey Pratt around 3.15pm, they chatted and walked slowly with Genette up a slight incline in the road heading back into the village. Once they reached the peak of the incline Genette took to her bike once more and rode ahead to continue her deliveries, she remained in the girl's sight for around 50 metres then took a curve in the road. Just about five or so minutes later the Tracey and Margaret came across Genette's bike, on the road with the newspapers all tipped out of the cycle's basket, there was no sign of Genette at all. 

Now once again I draw your thoughts to the abduction, Margaret and Tracey were only a matter of minutes behind Genette yet she had vanished, suggesting that the abductor must have acted very, very fast. He or she must have really taken a massive risk as the girls or indeed anyone else from the village could have come along at any moment, was the kidnapper working alone? Was there any force, was Genette maybe gagged or in someway stunned to silence her? It was suggested by one writer that a large van was used, considering the noise and the way such a vehicle would have stood out in such a surrounding that seems extremely unlikely, So what did happen to Genette Tate? We may never know.

The two girls began to call Genette's name out and looked over hedges and into gateways but there was no sign of the teenager. They walked on, pushing Genette's bike until they reached John Tate, he said: "Genette's friends came up the road to tell me that they couldn't find her, so I joined them and we headed back along the road to the lane where they had last seen her". "We were all looking for her by then jumping over hedges, shouting her name but to no avail, quite soon after that Violet said 'John I think we should call the police' ".

This was to be the start of one of the longest and biggest missing person searches ever launched by Devon and Cornwall police. The response by the police was prompt and well operated, within two hours of the report being made they had a helicopter from the RAF search and rescue team in the air and there were uniformed police all over the village. I can only imagine the dreadful fears held by John and Violet as they watched things unfold before their eyes. The couple spent the evening and many evenings after that searching the lanes and fields for Genette, but with no luck, Genette had literally 'vanished into thin air'.

The police officer in charge of the investigation was Detective superintendent Eric Rundle, he had no clues, no leads to go on. he was a highly experienced police officer and the second most senior detective on the Devon and Cornwall police force at that time. He had a team of officers working under him, which he divided into teams to search in particular areas. His job must have been extremely difficult as he had no witnesses, no sightings or reports of anything suspicious. There were so many questions; had Genette had some kind of accident? Had she been the victim of a robbery? Had she been abducted, if so why? The possibilities were endless but all just had no starting point, the most obvious hypothesis was that she had been abducted and taken away somewhere and based on that Eric Rundle would have been extremely aware of just how crucial time is in such cases if there is a chance of finding a victim alive.

It was said by a police officer working on the case that one disappointing thing was Margaret and Tracey had moved Genette's bike which could have given some clue or guidance to a trained eye, "the scene had been tampered with before the job got going".

The police commandeered the village hall as a form of operational centre and issued a description of Genette as 'boyish, 5ft tall with close style brown hair, suntanned wearing a white t-shirt with her name embroidered on its left shoulder. Her dad recalled her as very young-looking still very much a child but, interestingly some others from the village described her as maturing fast and very much a developing young woman. This, of course, has no obvious relevance to the case as far as I am able to ascertain but the description difference could bear importance as well as the way in which the missing girl was thought of and in how investigators understand the girl that apparently just vanished. 

Very early in the investigation police realised that they needed help from the full force of the media to get Genette's face on the pages of papers and Television screens all over the UK. They called a press conference and staged photographs of the teenager's bicycle abandoned in the road and for a whole month after the disappearance, the publication which Genette had been delivering ran stories with a photograph of her on their front page every day. 

On Monday 21st August just two days after the disappearance the headline on the Express and Echo ran 'Echo newsgirl vanishes'. They encouraged more than 8,000 people to gather just a week after Genette went missing to search the local common just on the outskirts of Aylesbeare known as Woodbury Common. The media dubbed the searchers 'Genette's army' as they set themselves into groups and tramped across the vast common searching for any clue that might lead to the missing girl being found. Worryingly it has since been admitted that there was actually no operational reason to scour the common but nonetheless it was done. 

The family were becoming increasingly desperate with every day that passed and this lead to many theories being put forward from all walks of life including paranormal investigators and mystics of all kinds including some conspiracy theorists (a pet hate of mine) but unfortunately, it seems Devon and Cornwall police were keen to listen to almost every theory suggested, maybe not the best practice but things were pretty desperate in so many ways, so every bit of publicity in a difficult case such as this really could have made a difference. 

Sadly as time wore on with no new leads and literally nothing at all to suggest what had truly happened to Genette eventually things began to wind down, The police gave the village hall back and the press headed off to find their next story. No sign of Genette, no one coming forward with credible information finally lead to the case becoming somewhat cold and enquiries being scaled back. 

In 1990 a killer was arrested for child abduction in the Scottish Highlands, he was Robert Black. He had a very shady past and had all the stereotypical identities of a predatory paedophile. He had a very bad childhood and moved down into England in 1968. He passed his driving test in 1976 and took a job as a poster delivery driver which gave him a reason to travel the highways and motorways with his work and could by all accounts literally turn up 'anywhere in the UK'. 

According to records Black's method of abducting children was to leave the major roads and head into rural settings such as Aylesbeare, abduct a child and vanish again without anyone even noticing him, so a theory was suggested that Genette Tate was a victim of Black but I don't feel that to be the case. 

In 1994 Roger Black was tried and convicted of the abduction, rape and murder of three girls during the 1980s and he was sentenced to life in prison. His victims were Susan Maxwell, aged 11 whom he sexually abused and murdered on July 30th 1982, he drove her body some 264 miles to dump her. Caroline Hogg aged just 5 was abducted on July 8th 1983 and her body found 310 miles away from her home and Sarah Harper aged 10 was abducted on March 26th 1986 from Leeds with her body found some 71 miles away. 

Devon and Cornwall Police interviewed Roger Black at length but he did not give anything away and was never charged but still remained a firm suspect in the Genette Tate disappearance. I personally am not convinced that he had any connection and neither was John Tate, Genette's father. Just remember this; all the other bodies were found, Genette's was not and whilst this may be just unfortunate I think it changes the hypothesis surrounding Black as an abductor.

In 2007 the police submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to charging Black in connection with Genette Tate's disappearance but the CPS were unable to find sufficient evidence to proceed. There was a little more hope in Black being further pursued after he was charged and convicted of yet another abduction and murder in 2011, that of Jennifer Cardy aged 9 abducted on 12th August 1981, Black had grabbed her whilst she was cycling to a friend's house. 

There is some evidence relating to Genette Tate's case in that a witness saw Black at Exeter Airport "acting suspiciously" on 19th August 1978 and the existence of a fuel receipt puts Black in the South West of England around the date of Genette's disappearance but it is not known how close to Aylesbeare he actually was. 

Whilst I accept these small pieces of evidence may be suggestive of Black taking Genette it is very much assumed based purely on other crimes he had committed and I am not at all convinced, I firmly believe that the person responsible for Genette's disappearance was from much closer to home but this is very much my own opinion. 

Black has been suggested as a relevant name / possible suspect in over a dozen child abduction cases in both the UK and into Europe but to be fair most "serial killers" will always be put forward for many crimes because they have been responsible for something similar. After all look at Christopher Halliwell, I have recently been made aware of a person writing on Facebook suggesting that he was responsible for 27 or more abductions and murders, but many can easily be debunked as nothing to do with him either.

Nobody knows for certain what happened on the afternoon of 19th August 1978 in Withen Lane Aylesbeare. Some are convinced that Robert Black was responsible for the vanishing of Genette Tate but many others are equally not convinced at all. Due to the passage of time and many theories combined with misinformation the stories and amateur sleuths, it seems unlikely we will ever get to the truth now, but we must never give up hope. 

There have been many suggestions of paedophilic activity in and around the village, occult crimes and more but I personally don't feel these "suggestions" are that far from the truth after all, but I don't want to be seen as too suggestive. I will, however, add just one point taken from a news article published by Devon Live which reads "The only lane leading off the main road is called Withen Lane, about 100 metres from the centre of Aylesbeare and within sight of the ancient church turret" think carefully about that. 

The village itself dates back to The Domesday Book and is itself very rural with lots of farmland. I won't dwell on these points but I feel that this information is important when studying the case in any depth, I could, of course, be 'barking up the wrong tree' so to speak. 

I will just close by saying that Genette Tate's father John went to his grave not knowing what happened to his precious daughter but he was absolutely adamant that Robert Black was not the man responsible for the disappearance. John Tate said that Devon and Cornwall Police had Black's name in the frame but purely based on his past not even any circumstantial evidence exists, that is made clear by the fact that as I mentioned previously the CPS would not prosecute as there was insufficient evidence. 

The disappearance of Genette Tate is a tragic and confusing case whist being of huge interest to true crime researchers such as myself. I do hope that one day there will be some answers and we may get to know what happened to Genette as she and her family still left behind deserve justice. 

Here below are some useful links with regard to this case. . .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-52697413

https://youtu.be/mat8SCRyb1I

https://janmeecham.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/into-thin-air/

Missing Linda Razzell - Murdered or Vanished

This case has bugged me for quite a long time so having recently studied some material on Christopher Halliwell, a serial killer, thought by some to be a suspect in the case and watched a documentary about Linda's husband Glyn, who was convicted of her murder (despite there being no body found) I thought I would post on this one before I write about Halliwell as a blog.

Before I get into this blog I want to say that something about this story just doesn't sit right with me and that is why I am considering the possibility of producing a documentary on the case. There has already been a couple broadcast but it is my opinion that due to the way they were put together very little new information has been forthcoming. 

The biggest issue with the documentaries concerned has been that they have mainly targeted the story of Mr Razzell's innocence and not really studied Linda Razzell's disappearance. The makers of documentaries, in this case, have decided to follow the news media and assume that because Glyn Razzell is serving a life sentence for the murder of his estranged wife that she must, in fact, be dead, well I don't really buy it. One of the documentaries examined Glyn Razzell's case with a view to trying to appeal his conviction so once again appealed to only a relatively small audience. Bearing in mind that it has been well publicised that a person was convicted of Linda Razzell's murder many people have taken their eyes off the ball so to speak.

I am sure there are people out there that may well have seen something or may remember something that sticks in their mind about the day in question but kind of dismissed it as Glyn Razzell is serving a prison sentence for a murder so "That must be what happened". well not necessarily.

Read on and I will try to bring all the details as well as explain my reasoning as to why I do not necessarily believe Linda Razzell to be dead. . .

Linda Razzell was 41 years old at the time of her disappearance. She lived in Highworth on the outskirts of Swindon and disappeared on her way to work on Tuesday 19th March 2002. Linda left home with her children at approximately 8.40am in her red Ford Escort and drove 7 miles into Swindon to work, dropping the children at school and her boyfriend at his work on the way. She parked her car in a residential street, Alvescott Road and set off to walk an approximately 20-minute journey to the nearby college where she was a teaching assistant, but she never arrived and has never been seen again. 

Mother of four Linda was married but in the process of getting divorced. Her estranged husband. Glyn Razzell had recently been made redundant from his job in finance. Linda had become unhappy in her marriage and started an affair with a man that had been working on an extension to the family home. As a result Glyn also spread his wings so to speak and found himself a lover. Linda and Glyn separated in August 2000 and Glyn left the family home. The affair with the builder didn't last and Linda moved on to a new boyfriend Greg Worrall.

According to friends of Glyn & Linda, the divorce negotiations became pretty ugly and Glyn stood to face a huge financial loss. Just a few days prior to Linda's disappearance she was granted a court order that saw a freeze put on her estranged husband's personal bank accounts, which lead to Glyn changing his plans for a French "booze cruise" at short notice in order that he could work with his solicitor to get that problem resolved.

You may well think, here is the motive for Glyn Razzell to murder his wife before she destroyed him altogether but I will explain reasons why that doesn't seem quite as simple as we may think, so do read on. . .

OK so as I just mentioned, on the morning of Linda's disappearance her husband Glyn had been scheduled to go on a booze cruise with some friends to France, but those plans fell through at short notice as he had to swear an affidavit with his solicitor in connection with the divorce. As a result, he loaned his car to his friends due to its size and capacity (it was a Ford Galaxy people carrier) and agreed to use their Renault Laguna whilst they were away. As he found himself at something of a loose end early that Tuesday morning he decided to go for a long walk and do some thinking.

He took a brief telephone call from his girlfriend at 8.24am then went on his way, leaving the Laguna in his driveway and apparently unaware of any problem with Linda. Glyn was not made aware of the fact Linda had not reported for work that day until around 5pm that day when a missing person report was filed. 

This is where things take a bit of a twist as we can be absolutely certain that the time of the telephone call received by Glyn on his home 'landline' telephone is accurate and therefore he could not have driven across Swindon in rush hour traffic in time to have reached Linda in time. Now add to that the confirmed fact that Linda left home later than normal on that particular day as one of her children had forgotten their homework and had to go back into the house for it, of course, there was no way Glyn would have known that. Further to this Linda had only started parking in the street where she was last seen since her separation from Glyn due to the cost of parking being expensive and her struggling financially, none of these facts were known to her estranged husband. Even if he had managed to drive across Swindon in time, he would have gone to her old parking area and not found Linda or her car.

So this information rules him out, right? Wrong as none of it could be absolutely proved. 

I am not overly familiar with the layout of Swindon but I have been reliably informed that Alvescott Road was a good 20 - 25-minute walk from the college where Linda worked, so why park so far away? Maybe it truly was the nearest area where she could park her car for free but it must have proved a problem in bad weather. Apparently, her routine seems to suggest that she would normally arrive in Alvescott Road around 0850 and reach the college at approximately 0915. According to the children and Greg Worrall, Linda had left home late that day so even her own routine was changed.

On the day before her disappearance, Linda had visited 3 separate banks, with her boyfriend and had made cash withdrawals at each one. A little indicative of something unusual in my opinion particularly as she was experiencing a lot of financial hardship so would have been short of funds as it was. The bank visits and withdrawals suggest to me that she was planning a particular use of the cash and that could well have been to go away with. Her bank visits and withdrawals were confirmed by CCTV yet Wiltshire police seem to not take much consideration or relevance of this. In my opinion, this bears great importance to the investigation.

One very curious and somewhat indicative occurrence on the day before Linda disappeared was that she visited Glyn's bank where she claimed that she wanted to pay money in. Of course, she knew that his accounts had been frozen. but nonetheless managed to obtain information by deception, Not only was this borderline illegal, it was quite an odd thing to do as she had been separated from Glyn for some 19 months and was almost divorced. The process was nearing its end and the divorce was due to be completed within a matter of weeks. 

Bearing all this in mind combined with the fact that Linda already had possession of the family home she had no legitimate reason to go to Glyn's bank and as far as I can ascertain it was not something that she had done before. I do wonder what she had hoped to do with any information gleaned from her actions that day and I feel it demonstrates that Linda was behaving somewhat irrationally. So what was behind that visit to Glyn's bank? What did Linda gain from it? Questions that we may never get a definitive answer to, certainly not unless we find Linda alive.

Linda was apparently quite a hot-headed woman that became flustered and angry quite quickly and was often seen to be stressed, yet statements from her children suggest that on the morning of her disappearance she was much calmer than usual and when she dropped the children off she would always say "see you at five". On this occasion, the children say that on that last journey with them when they reached school Linda simply said goodbye. 

Now it is perfectly reasonable to say that she knew they were running late so she just said "goodbye" so that she get on her way to work, but when a routine is in place it seems a little strange to change a parting comment like that. I know as a child my mum always said "see you tonight" whether she was dropping us at school or we were walking or riding away up the drive if she had suddenly said something different I would have been surprised and concerned. 

The next points that seem suggestive that Linda Razzell may have been planning to vanish on 19th March 2002 are that firstly she had 2 mobile telephones, 1 for every day and work use and 1 which she always carried which was specifically used for her children to contact her in an emergency, a phone which she left switched on even at work. On the day in question, Linda did not take that mobile with her, in fact, it was found in a drawer at home, switched off. 

Secondly, Linda had been issued with an identity badge which she had to wear at work, this was also in the drawer at home. Now surely it is reasonable to suggest that she would have had both the phone and badge in her handbag as she knew she was going to work and would need both with her. I can see a possible but somewhat unlikely explanation that she was running late on the morning of March 19th and absent-minded left them behind but my thinking is; why were such important items in the drawer? Surely during weekdays, those things would remain in Linda's handbag? A little strange in my thinking to suggest that every evening she would remove them from her bag or pocket, place them into a drawer, only to get them out again the very next morning, knowing that they were important and needed every day. I know we all do things differently but this really sticks with me as just a little strange.

Curiously the calendar at Linda's home had been marked with a ? question mark on the date of 19th March 2002, that seems a little indicative that she had something that she was at least considering doing on that date. The children and Greg Worrall had no explanation for the marking so obviously, Linda put it there, but why I guess we may never know unless we find Linda Razzell. 

I can only surmise that she had something that she had been considering for that day and the question mark was asking her shall I do that or not? Maybe something on the lines of "do I go"? or "am I ready to go"? " have I got everything ready to leave"?  These are of course only assumptions and could not really be seen as stand-alone strong evidence in an enquiry, but combined with other markers it's just another thing to add to a list of indicators that Linda Razzell planned her own disappearance.

I have had it suggested to me that Linda not only planned to disappear but as part of this she would frame her estranged husband for her murder as she knew with enough circumstantial evidence he could be convicted without her body necessarily being found. These are after all the actions of a lady with various mental health problems since the 1970s and which had reportedly started to return prior to her vanishing. Linda's children reported that she had been upset a lot more and would often go off alone and would not want them with her or want their cuddles. It was discovered that she had been prescribed anti-depressant medication but she had not been taking it leading up her disappearance.

An analysis of Linda's home PC turned up that there had very recently been internet searches for cheap flights to French-speaking countries, again not necessarily relevant but this combined with the fact that Linda spoke French fluently, loved holidays to France and she had lived in France for a year during her life. The fact that she vanished without a trace after these searches is a little more than suggestive of something that should in my opinion have been looked at much more closely. 

Add to this information that Linda was good friends with a couple of which the husband had worked on projects in the French-speaking country of Burundi and Linda had helped with his understanding the language. Further to that, a pad of Linda's was found with the address of the official residence of the ambassador of Burundi written on it. This could have of course been because she had helped her friend out that had worked there but again this potential lead indicator should be examined and given more consideration.

Now I come to a particular point which I firmly believe to be very, very suggestive and concerning. Linda Razzell was an avid reader, particularly of crime novels and prior to her disappearance, she had been reading Trial & Retribution 3, which she had read almost three-quarters of the way through. The book features details of the methods used by police during murder investigations and the plot of the story features a body in a boot of a car and planting of evidence in order to frame someone for murder. 

Is it just me or is this relevant and indicative of something a little suspicious? After all, let's bear in mind that Linda was very bitter towards and held something of a grudge against her estranged husband Glyn. The fact that one of the main pieces of "evidence" relied upon by the prosecution at Glyn Razzell's trial was bloodstains found mainly in the boot of the car.

So on that note let's return to Glyn Razzell and his potential involvement in Linda's disappearance and mysterious murder. . .

Now in order for Glyn Razzell to have got across town to meet and abduct Linda in that Tuesday morning, he would have had to pass some 25 traffic cameras on the way and despite the police examining all of them, there was no sign of the Renault Laguna or indeed Glyn Razzell. There is no alternative route from Glyn's home to the area where Linda parked her car so that should have ruled him out as a suspect but it did not. He would have had to have left home no later than 0820 in order to get to Alvescott Road in time but in fact, he was on the telephone on his home landline until approximately 0826 talking with his girlfriend.

I am not here to debate whether Glyn Razzell is guilty of his wife's abduction and possible murder but I will look at as much evidence as I can to try to draw a conclusion as to where Linda Razzell is and if indeed she was murdered and by whom. 

I will explain further in I do not agree with the supposition that serial killer Christopher Halliwell had anything to do with the matter. I do see some possibilities but I am aware that an organisation called Inside Justice recently examined the disappearance and were unable to establish any links to the killer either. 

Louise shorter CEO of Inside Justice and her team interviewed many people including the building contractors that undertook the extension building work on the Razzell's home but there was nothing to suggest that Christopher Halliwell ever worked on the property despite false media reports suggesting that he did, even suggesting that he was the man that Linda had an affair with is not the case as far as can be ascertained. 

Linda's boyfriend at the time of her disappearance was not the man with whom she had the affair with during the building work in the family home but there is still no evidence to link the building work on Razzell's house, an affair with Linda or even to suggest that Linda and Christopher knew one another.

As far as I am able to establish Christopher Halliwell was, in fact, making his living pretty much full time as a taxi driver at the time that Mrs Razzell vanished. 

There are indications that Halliwell may well have been actively killing in 2002 there have so far been no crimes actually linked with solid evidence to him and that includes the disappearance of Linda Razzell. We cannot even suggest that she was abducted in Halliwell's taxi as Linda parked her own car in Alvescott Road and as far as I am able to understand there is no record of her using taxi services.

There is a brief mention of a beige coloured car being parked in Alvescott Road, near to where Linda parked and a man was apparently sitting in the driver's seat. I am not currently able to find any evidence of this being considered during the investigation into Linda's disappearance nor anything to particularly suggest that there may have been any reason to think anything was particularly suspicious.

Let's come back to the story so far as Glyn Razzell's conviction for his wife's murder is concerned. . .

According to other corroborating evidence Linda suffered from varying degrees of mental health problems and as the divorce from Glyn became more protracted and bitter she made allegations that on at least two occasions her husband had physically assaulted her. In both cases, Glyn was acquitted at trial by jury and the cases closed. 

Now the relevant points need to be examined: 

• Some 16 hours after Linda disappeared Wiltshire police went to Glyn's home to ask him some questions about the matter, during which time they examined his car.
• Glyn volunteered information to the police by telling them that he had in fact driven a different vehicle that day and advised them as to where the Laguna was, surely if he had something to hide he would have simply allowed them to examine his own car knowing that it had been in France on the day in question. 
• The police then examined the Renault Laguna but found nothing indicative to suggest Linda may have been in the vehicle either being abducted or otherwise on TWO occasions, only after it had been returned twice to its owner in a filthy state covered in forensic powders and the owner had thoroughly cleaned it inside and out was it then taken away again, examined and large amounts of blood splashes found that were found to belong to Linda, hmmm something wrong there me thinks.
• Interestingly there were no hairs, DNA, skin flakes, etc connected to Linda in the car at all and as far as I can establish there was nothing found on Glyn's clothes either.
• An eyewitness that knew both Linda Razzell and her boyfriend states that she saw Linda's boyfriend sitting on a wall in Queen's Park in Swindon at 0930 on Tuesday 19th March 2020. This park is close to Alvescott Road where Linda parked her car and she would have normally walked through that park on the way to work.
• Linda's boyfriend Greg had been monitoring Glyn's movements for some two weeks leading up to Linda's disappearance and this is confirmed by a statement from Glyn Razzell's neighbour saying that Greg Worrall had been asking her questions about Glyn and his movements. Apparently, Greg Worrall had knocked on her door assuming it was Glyn's house and enquired if Glyn still lived there, this behaviour has never been explained
• Very interestingly when Greg was interviewed by the police on 20th March 2002 he somehow knew that Glyn had been using the Renault Laguna on 19th March and told the police so. Once again it seems rather suspicious that the police did not seem to consider this as odd or indeed raise any question as to how and why a man that was in no way connected to Glyn knew such information or indeed why.
• Mobile telephone records clearly indicate that Greg Worrall was not where he claimed to be on the day that Linda disappeared. There are at least 3 occasions where mobile telephone masts indicated that they had identified the phone in use in their coverage area yet he had claimed to be elsewhere at those times. Worrall was never cross-examined about this despite clear cell site analysis from his phone confirming him to be a liar, why is this I ask myself?
• Now the prosecution did not pursue this or find it suspicious, yet when it was mentioned that Glyn Razzell's mobile phone was switched off at the time that Linda went missing they submitted this to the trial jury as very suspicious, why is that? See why I feel things really do not add up?
• One more very important point is that Linda Razzell reported allegations on two separate occasions that her husband had violently attacked her. On both times Glyn Razzell was acquitted at trial. He did admit to the team of Inside Justice that there had been a violent incident once during his marriage which had got a little out of hand but he fully admitted that and never attempted to hide anything.
• Linda's mobile phone was found in the alleyway where it has been suggested she was abducted from and police say that the phone had fallen out of Linda's bag in the struggle when she was abducted. The problem with this is that the phone received a number of calls on Tuesday 19th March 2002 from people trying to find Linda but one particular stands out as at 2215 on the night of 19th March a phone mast over a mile away from where the phone was found picked up a call to Linda's phone. According to expert witnesses, this mast could NOT have received the signal from where the phone was located. 
• The phone was found under a plank of wood suggesting that it was planted there, this, in my opinion, is backed up by the fact Greg Worrall was seen in Alvescott Road "checking to see if Linda's car was still there" that same night and the phone was found the next morning 20th March 2002.
• It is even more indicative of foul play when we consider that there had been a heavy police presence in the said alleyway during that Tuesday yet the phone had not been spotted but surprisingly it was found the very next morning. So was it planted there sometime after 2215 on Tuesday night? I think it is highly likely yes, is the answer to that question.
• The Renault Laguna was forensically examined on 3 separate occasions, the first two found nothing, yet the third time a large quantity of blood staining was found around the boot area of the car but rather surprisingly NONE was found on any of the driving controls or doors of the vehicle, not even the boot lip.

I think I have covered pretty much every angle of this story, suffice to say I do not believe that Linda Razzell is dead, there is very little evidence to suggest that she is. Some would say her bank accounts and finances have not been used since, but it was quite simple in 2002 to vanish and assume another identity, all the more so in a foreign country like Burundi for example. To be fair the old adage is true "If a person does not want to be found, even the best detective will struggle to locate them"

There have been witnesses that have claimed to see Linda Razzell since her disappearance including a lady that was a long term friend of Linda's and knew her very well who claimed that she had seen her driving in a silver Ford Fiesta on the day after she vanished and that Linda had appeared very angry that the woman had seen her and that the witness attempted to make contact by waving. The police refused to accept this witness story and even set about trying to find the Ford Fiesta but despite 70 vehicles being checked the car was not traced. I do believe this witness to be correct and she DID Linda the day AFTER she disappeared.

So has Glyn Razzell served 17 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit? Yes in my opinion he quite likely has done.

Was Linda abducted and murdered on Tuesday 19th March 2002? In my opinion, no I doubt it

Was Linda murdered by Christopher Halliwell or did she even know him? No in my opinion and based on researched evidence that is very unlikely.

Is Linda Razzell still alive and living a life as someone else? Yes, in my opinion, I think that is highly likely

Did Linda Razzell and her boyfriend possibly frame Glyn Razzell for her murder? In all honesty, I don't know at this stage, but I would not be at all surprised

Please leave me a comment and let me know your thoughts on this and of course, watch out for updates

https://glynrazzell.org.uk/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/may/04/ukcrime.features11

https://insidetime.org/the-case-of-glyn-razzell/

Documentary: During the time that I have been researching and writing this blog an independent TV company have replied to me with a view to making a documentary; so I now begin the process of contacting relevant people, conducting interviews and preparing a script. I shall, of course, keep you updated as time passes.

Glyn Razzell and his new partner Rachel Smith 

Linda Razzell and her boyfriend Greg Worrall

 

Ann Heron - Unsolved murder 30th anniversary

August 3rd 2020 marks the 30th anniversary of the tragic murder of Ann heron in the outskirts of Darlington, in County Durham in the North of England. The murder that became known as  'The bikini murder'  has to this day never been solved, but a death investigator Jen Jarvie believes that she could possibly have identified the killer or at least the guy seen driving away from the scene in a blue car at the approximate time of the killing.

Ann Heron's murder which took place on the hottest day of 1990 remains the only unsolved murder to remain unsolved in the last 70 years so I can only imagine that it must be quite a thorn in the side for that area's police. 

Mrs Heron was 44 years old and mum to three when she met her tragic end to an unknown murderer and her husband has been shrouded in suspicion. He was arrested and charged with Ann's murder in 2005 but all the charges were dropped and the case against him was abruptly discontinued after just 12 weeks. Sadly because no other suspect has been forthcoming and the murder has not been solved the 85 year old widower's name has never been fully cleared of suspicion.

Now, I have recently read quite a lot of material written about this case suggesting that the killer may be Christopher Halliwell, which in my opinion takes the focus away from the search for the real assailant. I am not an expert but, I really am frustrated to see people that claim to have a "high level of expertise" in criminal investigation writing books and articles simply suggesting one man's name for about 30 murders up and down the UK.

Sorry I digress. . .

So it seems that a dangerous criminal Michael Benson was on the run from prison where he had been serving a life sentence for violent crimes. Jen Jarvie has been working closely with the family of the late Ann for over 4 years now has said that she firmly believes that Benson should at least be considered as a serious suspect in the murder. Mrs Jarvie said "Benson has not been a suspect in the investigation throughout it's 30 year history and she believes he should be considered as a suspect". 

Jen Jarvie went on to say "after 30 long years, the family needs conclusion. These are people's lives that we are dealing with. It is cruel, it is inhumane to keep them hanging".

3rd August 2020 sees the 30th anniversary in this unsolved case and it is in my mind high time that this case was investigated from a new angle, take away the automatic assumption that "Halliwell is responsible" and look more carefully at the information that we have available to us.

Ann Heron is thought to have been sunbathing in a fairly secluded garden at her somewhat isolated  home and may well have been observed over a hedge. She was wearing her bikini and enjoying a very hot day, the hottest in the North East of England since records began in the 1930s. At  1645 hrs a blue car, possibly a Ford Sierra or Vauxhall Astra was seen parked outside Ann's home, Aeolian House, Middleton St George and at 1705 hrs a blue car was seen speeding down the 50 yard driveway and away in a westerly direction along the A66, having cut sharply across the A67, overtook a taxi and sped away. 

The driver of the car was described as Heavily tanned possibly of  a Mediterranean appearance with hair longer at the sides, aged between 35 to 45 years old. Unfortunately neither of the witnesses managed to get even a partial index for the vehicle and despite intense enquiries it was never found. It is quite clear that the vehicle and it's driver need to be identified but of course time has passed, the car has probably long since been scrapped and the driver will have changed considerably. If a witness comes forward they will need to be sure that the person they identify is the right one, but having said that no one must be put off. If anyone knows any information relating to that fateful day 3rd august 1990 particularly between abut 1630 hrs and 1710 hrs they really need to come forward and speak up.

The late Ann Heron's widower Peter is in his late 80's and it is so important to try to ensure any doubt about his involvement in his wife's death is lifted before he passes away so that he can rein peace. Peter came home that day and found the dog in the garden and Ann on the floor in the lounge in a pool of blood wearing just her bikini top. Ann who was booked to attend a party that evening had been repeatedly and brutally stabbed to death. Police suggest that the suspect had planned to rape Ann as her bikini bottom had been removed but whether that was the intention or not of course we cannot confirm.

I mean however unlikely there is no evidence available to confirm that Ann was in fact wearing the bikini bottoms prior to the incident which lead to her death, although there would be no logical reason why she would not have.

Sadly due to misreporting by the media (as usual) it was suggested that Ann's killer was planning to rape her but if that was the case why didn't he go through with it? After all he was presumably alone with Ann and as according to the police there was no sign of any struggle inside the house or indeed outside, this of course indicates that there was a very good chance the killer was known to Ann, but who was he? 

30 years ago today 3rd August Ann's life was brought to an abrupt end seemingly without any reason or explanation. She was by all accounts a friendly lady, quite reserved and a mother that was very much loved so why would anyone take her life? Was this just an opportune killer who saw Ann sun bathing in the grounds of her home? If so then why no sign of any disturbance or of a fight? After all our natural human instinct when faced with danger is to fight or flee, neither of which seems to have happened on the hottest day of 1990. 

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18623640.ann-heron-murder-give-day-court-clear-name-says-husband-peter/

Ann's husband has today written to the police and challenged them to either look at the new evidence and clear his name completely or charge him again and give him his day in court to prove to the world that he had nothing to do with his wife's death. 

Peter said "You are innocent until proven guilty, but they never gave me the chance to prove I am innocent" He went on to say "I was guilty before I could be innocent"

I know it's a long time ago but I do urge anyone that may have any memories of 3rd August 1990 in or around Darlington in County Durham in particular the A67 between 4.30pm and 5,15pm to contact the police or indeed get in touch with The Northern Echo. 

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I do not believe this lady's murder to be in any way connected to Christopher Halliwell and I urge anyone looking at the case to focus on more recent evidence raised by private death investigator, Jen Jarvie which links the late Michael Benson to the case. Here is a picture of him taken from the 1990 BBC Crimewatch appeal when he was on the run from prison and said to have been driving a blue Ford Orion. . .

I wish Peter Heron the very best and sincerely hope that his name will soon be cleared and the truth finally told on this tragic case. 

Stay safe everyone, please do leave me a comment and don't forget to follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/adams_jarad or

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jarad-adams-8360751b4/

Useful Links: https://thetruecrimeenthusiast.co.uk/2017/07/18/the-beauty-in-the-bikini-murder/

                       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhXJ3dx3Ck

Update . . .

BBC News has today announced that a suspect has officially been put forward in this case by Jen Jarvie and now the family have high hopes that the case may at last be solved and most importantly the good name of Peter Heron be rightly cleared. 

I will bring updates as they come in, here is the link to the news article, stay safe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-53637276

Missing Andrew Gosden

https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/help-us-find/andrew-gosden-07-019198

Andrew Gosden went missing from his home in Doncaster, South Yorkshire on September 14th 2007, he was aged just 14 years old at the time. He withdrew £200 in cash from his bank account and bought a one-way ticket to London and simply vanished, ha has never been seen or heard of since.

Andrew was an extremely high achiever in school, particularly excelling in mathematics. Just a few weeks before he disappeared he had attended a summer school camp of some kind aimed at high achievers and in fact chose that over and above going on holiday in London. 

According to his father Kevin, Andrew had been very keen and excitable about the time that he had spent at 'The young gifted and talented programme'. Andrew merely saw school as something that had to be done in order to progress to adult life, so clearly, he was very keen to progress. Hardly the kind of lad to want to end his life in my humble opinion, so I feel suicide can be pretty much ruled out. 

As some of you that know me and follow me on Twitter I am a very suspicious minded person and when something lands at my door, no matter how old or how seemingly mundane I am not happy just to put it down if I feel there is more to it and that is most definitely the case here. This young the chap went missing in South Yorkshire, rocked up in London's busy Kings Cross then promptly vanished out of the sight of all that CCTV and millions of pairs of eyes, really? 

I am not convinced by the explanation that the police took too long to gather CCTV, whilst that may be true in part I am in no way satisfied that the very last camera sighting of a young lad, dressed in quite a unique way at a time of the day when kids would be at school quite adds up. To be fair it's not like he could pass for an 18-year-old, he was by his father's own admission of a younger appearance than his actual age. Why did the police take too long, if of course, that is true? Why was he not stopped by police or truancy officers in London, particularly bearing in mind there are schools quite close to Kings cross?

Yes I fully accept that the capital city is an extremely busy place with many, many tourists visiting every day but, surely a 14-year-old boy who looked more like 12 walking around the city centre alone should have drawn attention. After all, the city has many people rushing around it but it also has many police officers, security staff and huge amounts of operational CCTV watched by dedicated controllers constantly viewing it.

THE DAY ANDREW VANISHED

Friday, September 14th 2007 started much the same way as any other school day in the Gosden family home, except that Andrew was reportedly just a little more tired and irritable than normal, but nonetheless he got up for school and set off on time, calling "see you later" as he set off out at around 0805. That's where things took their first turn as Andrew did not set off towards the school bus, but instead went to the park just down the road and waited for his parents and sister to leave the house. 

Immediately a question comes to mind, although it may be irrelevant; Why did Andrew and his sister, 2 years his senior not head out to school together? I've not seen any explanation but I do wonder if they attended the same school, surely they must have, but maybe not. I have not been able to ascertain what school Andrew's sister attended but I do know that he attended McCauley catholic high school

Moving on

So, Andrew sets off as normal, no signs of anything wrong were noticed by the family, but there was something wrong wasn't there? This young lad with a 100% attendance record at school goes and hides out in a park, never even heading for school and clearly no intention of attending. 25 minutes later he's been back home, changed his clothes from school uniform to every day casual and headed out for the last time. Nobody saw this youngster to really notice him, hardly observant or conscientious in South Yorkshire then. Did nobody walk through the park at that time of the day, maybe on their way to work, school or maybe to the shops? Nobody thought it a little odd to see a boy in school uniform sat in a park? Did no one approach Andrew? Ask if he was OK and why he was not on his way to school? 

The teenager then headed out to the cashpoint, passing a neighbour's CCTV, where he withdrew £200 from his bank account then headed to the station where he insisted on purchasing a one-way ticket to London despite being advised that he could buy a return for literally just a few pence more. He would have had around £130 left after the ticket so a few pence more would not have made any difference. Seemingly 14-year-old Andrew either had a plan of how he would return home which failed or he had no intention of returning. Now let's look carefully here. . .

Andrew was an above average, highly educated boy always keen to learn new things, so it stands to reason that he would have known that he would be seen by the neighbouring house CCTV and would almost certainly be seen hiding out on a bench in a park, but did nothing to conceal his movements or take another route perhaps? He grew up in that area so he would have almost certainly have had an idea of other people's movements around him and the likelihood of being observed.

I digress for a moment as at this point, a very important observation was made by the local / family vicar Reverend Alan Murray. The vicar knew Andrew very well as the family were regulars at the church, although Andrew had stopped attending a year before he vanished. The vicar was actually invited to dinner at the Gosden home on the very evening that Andrew disappeared. Reverend Murray states that he saw Andrew in the park on September 14th but did not pay attention and went on his way, only later thinking that Andrew's behaviour was a little out of character when he received the news that the boy had in fact gone missing.

Now I don't want to be accused of slander or of pointing the finger at all but let's just take a glance at the facts here: Andrew had a 100% school attendance record, he had NEVER bunked off school at all, not once and the school bus and route to school lay in the opposite direction to the park, obviously the family vicar knew all of this.

Reverend Murray had telephone numbers for Andrew's parents but he 'never gave it much thought' and went upon his merry way. I really do find that a little hard to accept, so I am left to ask the question as to why. Having studied many articles, watched documentaries and You-tube videos, I've learnt a lot but I can't help feeling that there is so much more that should be said, many questions simply remain unanswered.

I have even taken the trouble to carefully study many posts and discussions on the Reddit website with so many lovely people going over various thoughts on the case. Some people would class the users of sites such as Reddit as "armchair detectives" but I personally find their points help me to understand and consider stories such as this one in more depth. Many of them are not in any way qualified but they take the time and use their abilities to really think even the smallest point through and analyse it carefully. In my opinion, it is often the smaller points that make such a difference to a case.

Let's take the usual route and consider as much as we can in this case, please do read on. . .

Fourteen-year-old Andrew got up on the morning of September 14th 2007 obviously planning to leave his home and head to London, was he going to sneak off to a concert of one of his favourite rock bands? No, I just don't feel that explanation is right, why? Well . . .

Andrew was very happy going to school as he saw education as important and had an absolutely 100% attendance record, his father even said that Andrew had never even taken a day off sick with flu or a cold. I have previously mentioned that Andrew had chosen to attend an educational high achievers summer camp during the summer holidays rather than go on a trip to London to visit his grandparents when he could have easily gone to a concert or two, so why sneak off? That added with the fact he purchased a one-way ticket to London not a return really makes me see things differently.

I am almost convinced that when Andrew Gosden boarded the train that September day, he knew there was no plan to return home but, one small thing makes me unsure and that is that he left over a hundred pounds in his room, surely he would have taken it to use. There is one possible explanation there and that is that he believed he was going somewhere and maybe with somebody where he would not need money. 

I feel at the juncture it's quite important to ask a rather obvious question. . .So picture this scenario; You are working in the ticket office at the railway station, it is a school day and a 14-year-old boy that looks younger appears alone and requests to purchase a One-way ticket to travel alone some 170 miles. Would you not question this? Why is he not at school? Where are his parents or guardian? Where has he got such a large amount of money? Furthermore, this small boy is adamant that he only wants a one-way journey, would you not ask questions and raise the alarm, maybe contact the British Transport Police? Surely it is obvious there is something that is abnormal about this, would you not have confirmed the child's safety? I know I definitely would have done. 

There have been many theories put forward about Andrew's reason for disappearing including a suggestion that he ran away to commit suicide but I really don't accept that at all. I mean why would a teenager travel all those miles to end his life? Surely there would have been many places where he could have simply vanished and killed himself locally to his home. Also as previously mentioned he withdrew some £200 from his bank leaving it almost empty when he only needed approximately £70 to travel to London so why take the rest if he simply intended to commit suicide? In my mind, that theory is dismissed.

Just as recently as March 2020 Andrew's anguished dad Kevin Gosden spoke to Examiner Live and explained that every day is still a real struggle for him and the family as they simply have no reason for his son's disappearance and no leads as to his whereabouts or what has become of him. You can read that article below.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/dad-missing-doncaster-teenager-andrew-17902519

Kevin is still desperate to get even the tiniest piece of information that could lead to him knowing what happened to his son Andrew and ultimately if he is still alive. I will say at this point I think that the young man is still alive but, that is only a personal 'gut' feeling, I have not been shown any evidence to truly suggest either way. The more that I think on this case and the more that I research the more I am convinced that London was never Andrew's intended final destination, in fact I feel that the boy was clever enough to buy a ticket there to make everyone look for him there. 

I look at his face and cannot help thinking "Here is a lad that is very clever for his age" He would have worked out everything meticulously I am sure and had everything planned. He apparently wasn't very smart when it came to everyday stuff like packing things to travel with but, he travelled to London alone having carefully thought out his going out as normal, hiding out in a park, coming back and even laying somewhat a cold trail in the family home. 

This boy dressed in school uniform, went back home put everything in its usual place in order not to raise the alarm any earlier than absolutely necessary. I highlight this as I feel it to be a very relevant part of Andrew's plan. To be fair if he had not gone through the usual process of hanging his blazer on the back of the chair and putting his uniform into the washing machine his family would have wondered why and looked for him probably as much as two and a half hours earlier than they did.

There has at one stage been an online contact with a young man identifying as "Roo" which was Andrew's childhood nickname. In this contact, he apparently told a man that he had no bank account as he had left home at age fourteen. How accurate this lead is I would not like to speculate but once again IF this was Andrew then "Roo" told the man that he was in Lincoln and I wouldn't mind betting that he was nowhere near there as he knew that if this man raised the alarm the Gosden family and the police would go looking for him there and of course they did. 

The family received the news that "Roo" had been in contact with someone online and had said he was in Lincoln, they took themselves there and spent time driving around the streets, handing out flyers and talking to people but of course, the search lead to nothing and the trail once again went cold.

Now; One point that I really believe holds a lot of relevance yet it seems neither the police nor the Gosden Family really pursued is the potential male witness that went to Enterprise Way Police Station in Leominster, Herefordshire. Unfortunately, when the "witness" arrived at the police station he found it closed and used an intercom to communicate with HQ and said that he had information in connection with Andrew's disappearance and that he had seen him in Shrewsbury. Sadly by the time, a police officer arrived to speak to the man he had vanished into the night.

The same man is believed to have written to The BBC since that time with the same information saying that was pretty certain that he had seen Andrew Gosden in Shrewsbury and apparently West Yorkshire police were liaising with local police to follow things up. The story featured on the BBC Spotlight programme on 26th November 2008 but unlike London and Lincoln there is no suggestion that the Gosdens went to Shrewsbury or indeed did any campaigning there, which strikes me as a little odd, I guess we can only wonder why. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2008/11/26/missing_at_christmas.html

I can well believe that Andrew reads all the articles written about him and watches the many videos and knows that he left for a reason, but that is the massive question which if answered would in my belief lead to Andrew being found. . .Why did 14-year old Andrew Gosden leave home?

The picture above indicates what Andrew may look like today if you know anything at all or indeed Andrew if you are reading this and even if you don't want to be found just contact someone and let them know you are safe

Here is the official family website http://helpustofindandrew.weebly.com/

Remember Andrew has a very unusual ear : 

 

 

The Murders of Julie Pacey & Sharon Harper 1994

Here are two tragic cases of women who lost their lives to murder, both were mother's, both were well-liked and well-loved. Their lives were cut off far too soon by the evil that is murder, but these cases sadly have so far never been solved. . .

Working through each item of evidence as supplied there are many questions in both the case of Sharon Harper who lived at Sycamore Court and worked at the Market Cross pub in Westgate, murdered between 1st and 3^rd of July 1994, her body was found in shrubbery in the Shepherd construction site on Earlsfield Lane, Grantham on 3rd July 1994  and that of Julie Pacey, murdered on 26^th September 1994, her body was found by her 14-year-old daughter Helen in the family bathroom at Longcliffe Road, Grantham soon after she was killed.

Police have so far always refused to link the two cases, despite post-mortems revealing similarities. The individual OICs, officers in charge of the cases think the MO, modus operandi in each case is too different but I disagree. Let's be realistic, there has to be some reason why the police have drawn that conclusion and I feel there is something that truly does not add up. Let's look at some facts. . .

Sharon Harper had apparently had sexual intercourse quite recently before death and although her clothes were in place and no evidence of a struggle at the time of her body being discovered, nonetheless sexual intercourse had taken place. There is, of course, no physical evidence to confirm whether she was killed in the same place that her body was found.

The forensic report does not give any possible time indication of how long the sex had taken place prior to death

Considering that Sharon had been at work until after midnight on 1^st July this makes it clear that the sexual activity had more than likely taken place between the time she left work and her murder during the small hours of 2^nd July 1994, probably soon after 0100, either that or she had sex during her time working in a busy pub on a Friday night, which seems extremely unlikely and can almost certainly be dismissed.

Sharon was then beaten, strangled and her body dumped, partially concealed by shrubs.

Julie Pacey was, according to forensic reports violently sexually assaulted before her death and it would seem extremely likely that it was part of the murderous act. She was found with underwear and tights around her knees, face down in the bathroom of her family home.

My opinion is that it is perfectly possible that Sharon and Julie's killer could have been the same person.

The description of the suspects are a little different as it is suggested that the man seen with Sharon had long hair and was guessed to be around 30 years old, whilst the suspect in Julie Pacey's case was said to be around 40 years old, wearing blue overalls, to have had red cheeks with a ruddy complexion. Unfortunately the rest of the description in Sharon's case is a little sketchy.

We must bear in mind that the man seen with Sharon was seen late at night by people in the dark, at very best lit by car headlights or a street lamp. Although somewhat likely, there is no firm evidence to suggest that the man she was seen with was her killer, particularly as he was on foot although the man concerned has never come forward to be eliminated from enquiries, so this does cast some suspicion over him. It is my belief that the killer in Sharon's case would have taken her by car. Sharon was seen with a man of a similar description before her murder, a point I will cover later.

I would be very keen to know if anyone saw a dark-coloured BMW in the area between 1st and 3rd July 1994, particularly during the hours close to  when Sharon was last seen alive

In the case of the suspect in Julie Pacey's murder, it was daylight and he was seen on multiple occasions, so again I feel this could have been the same man.

There has been much reference to the so titled “serial killer” Christopher Halliwell as being the suspect in Sharon's murder as some parts of his MO Modus Operandi are similar, but I don't feel it is very likely. The problem is there are people out there that just see “ah here is a man suspected of being a serial killer and already convicted of two murders, so we can make him a scapegoat for lots of others, get a good clear up done”, but this just muddies the waters and clouds judgement, thus closing people's eyes to the real killer's identity.

[The issue will be dealt with in a separate blog article but, it is fair to say that disgraced police detective Steve Fulcher said that he believed Halliwell was responsible for many more murders, there has to be a point where we can't simply suggest that every woman murdered over a 25 year period from the early 1980s to 2016 was necessarily a victim of Halliwell or worthy of an investigation involving him.]

Ask yourself this; What are the chances of two women being strangled and 'possibly' sexually assaulted in a smallish market town where the population was around 43,000 at that time within just 86 days of one another.?

Not only that, but from the DNA found in Julie's case no one was identified. It is not clear whether any DNA swabs were taken in Sharon's case or indeed were available by the time the UK national DNA database came into it's own a year or so later in 1995. More importantly what are the chances of no one being found responsible for either killing, particularly if it were two different assailants. It is fair to say that if any samples at all were taken from Sharon then almost certainly they would have been matched with Haliwell had he been connected as would also be the case with Julie.

United Kingdom National Database

Officially known as The UK national criminal intelligence DNA Database, set up in 1995 using the Second Generation Multiplex (SGM)DNA profiling system and by 2016 held no less than 5.8 million DNA records. 
These records are obtained from crime scenes and police suspects, although its is fair to say that samples taken from suspects that are not charged are apparently destroyed.

Back to the story. . .

It has been suggested that Sharon could possibly have been working as some sort of sex worker as she only had a part-time job. She was struggling to bring up a small baby and maintain her life in a flat, however, she was also in a long term relationship and was engaged to be married, so this is something which doesn't seem to have had much scrutiny, whether or not it is relevant we may never know but worthy of a mention.

Moving on to Julie Pacey; This case is messy and is a lot more difficult to grasp or make sense of, but we must unravel things as best we can, let's see what we understand thus far. . .

Julie was quite a bit older than Sharon, she was 38, married to Andrew with a family, a 14-year-old daughter Helen and 11-year-old son Matthew. She lived in a suburbia kind of property in an affluent area of Grantham. Presumably, they would have been quite comfortable financially, a presumption which is reinforced by the fact Julie 'Chose' not to work when the children were young and was only working just a few hours a day when she met her demise.

According to evidence that we are presented with it seems that we are expected to believe a man just “walked in” off the street, went upstairs presumably unheard by Julie, to say nothing of being totally unseen by neighbours and passers-by. He went on to viciously sexually assault her and murder her. There was no motive, no robbery and no struggle, really? He even took the ligature with him and took it away again!!

Look at it this way; Next time you walk upstairs in a house where the stairs are made of wood listen out see how many creaks and noises there are as you walk. Would she not have been alerted to his approach? How many household front doors open and close that quietly not to be heard by a lone woman in a quiet family house? Try it for yourself.

Julie's daughter Helen, aged 14 at the time said that she arrived home and entered through the front door but, she did not recall whether or not she had to use her key to unlock the door or whether it was unlocked.

This statement may not seem like much but, it is actually suggestive that the door was quite often locked, this presumption is again secured by the fact otherwise the daughter would have said something like “The door was unlocked as always”. 

So, why was the main front door to a house unlocked, thus making it easy for a murderer to enter without knocking or anything if it was often locked? The children had a key so they must have needed one, why would they need one if the door was normally unlocked?

In my experience this is where things become very cloudy and unlikely.

I have researched many tragic cases, but never one that at first glance seems so simple yet when examined in detail is very complex indeed.

Lets delve a little deeper. . .

Before we do, I just have to pick up on a statement made to the press by Detective chief inspector Graham White of Lincolnshire police who lead the hunt for Julie's killer in 1994 in regard to the killer's motive “The motive was not one of burglary or theft. The only motive was to go to the house sexually assault and kill Julie”, that makes little or no sense

Anyway my apologies, I digress. . .

Apparently Julie looked after the neighbour's daughter after school every day, except for Mondays so this “opportunist murderer” struck very lucky in finding the front door of the house unlocked, his victim alone in her house, upstairs in her bathroom blissfully unaware that her killer was in her home on just the one day in a one hour window of time when she would be alone. Bear in mind also that Julie's husband was a plumber and therefore would probably have had a very varied routine of the times that he was at home.

The man knew where to find Julie, there was no sign of a struggle, yet her tights and underwear were below her knees which to be fair is perfectly reasonable as she was in the bathroom but, she had been violently sexually assaulted and strangled. Julie was apparently still wearing a roll neck jumper which covered her neck so that no one realised she had been strangled until the paramedic ambulance staff lowered it. Hmmm, something really does not add up here. . .

Look; This stranger not only got into the house unseen and unnoticed, violently sexually assaulted Julie all without any sounds being heard outside but 'moved' the jumper, rather than remove it to attach a ligature, strangled her until she was dead then removed the ligature and covered the wounds? Really? Why? What difference would it make as to when the strangulation marks were seen? If the clothing was removed, ripped or damaged? 

Further question arises here as statements say "No sign of a struggle" so how did a killer get the jumper out of the way, get the ligature on to successfully strangle Julie without her fighting back? It is human instinct to fight back, so surely her hands would be marked? 

After all it's the Fight or flight response, the body naturally responds to danger, acute stress and attack. The body's sympathetic nervous system is activated due to a sudden release of hormones when faced with something frightening, the heartbeat is quickened, the person begins to breathe faster, the body becomes tense in immediate readiness to take action

The assailant would be gone before anyone found Julie and going to all the extra trouble to take care of details made the time spent in the house by the murderer longer, thus increasing the risk of being sprung!! Let's bear in mind that the assailant would have had the absolute maximum of one hour to carry out his dreadful activities and be gone before the return of the daughter from school, presumably he / she would have been aware of the time frame.

One possibility is that the assailant was already in the house with Julie's knowledge and was known to her or maybe he hadn't left the scene but was hiding somewhere but the authorities were quickly summoned and thus in the latter case he/she would have been discovered. These are just suggestions and may bear no relevance to the case at this stage.

Now let's step back just a little to Friday 23^rd September 1994; Julie told her friend's child that a strange man had knocked on the door just before the child arrived. He had knocked on the door and as Julie was vacuuming and assumed the person knocking was the expected child she had called out for the man to come in. Apparently, he had entered the house and asked for directions to a road some distance away and left.

Once again not what would really be termed “normal” behaviour, surely an average person walking along a street looking for directions would ask a passer-by or go to a nearby shop. Why would he turn into someone's driveway, walk to a door, knock then ask? What if there had been no one home? It could be argued that Julie's car was on the drive but she could have been out on foot or with her husband in his car.

Interestingly the neighbour's daughter had seen the man leaving Julie's house on the Friday, I can't help but raise the question; “Would Julie have mentioned him and his visit at all had the child not seen him”, I don't think so.

The other question raised here is, did the child “see” the man because Julie told her about him and drew her attention to his visit? In other words, if Julie hadn't mentioned the man would the child have even recalled it to mention him to the police three days later?

Looking again at the day of Julie's murder; She apparently left the nursery where she worked part-time at 2pm, drove 2 miles to her parent's house to visit them yet she was back in Grantham town centre, having parked the car and was window shopping at 2.30pm.

She was seen at 2.45pm in her car turning into her driveway so didn't shop for long and was then seen again driving at 3.10pm also appearing to be coming from town, busy lady for sure.

So this opportunist that “may” have been watching the house for a few days has a window of one hour to get in, unseen, brutally sexually assault and murder a woman in her bathroom, undo her watch from her wrist and leave also unobserved. Once again all seems very sketchy, very circumstantial and very 'shot in the dark'. 

No evidence of the robbery, no ransacking of the house, even the car left peacefully parked on the drive, so what was the reason for the murder? Why Julie Pacey? Why not the woman next door? Why pick on one house in the middle of a street and one woman of all the women in Grantham? Those are the questions that need to be answered to come close to solving this case.

Don't get me wrong I understand that the minds of killers are not logical and they do not necessarily have the time to consider their actions but in most cases, there will ultimately be a reason for murder.

Lets look at the possibility of the assailant having watched the house apparently unnoticed by neighbours and passers-by over a few days. This theory seems pretty unlikely as most of Longcliffe Road, Grantham is a built-up area and a fairly straight road. Once again, why? If a killer is going to go to all the trouble of targeting a person to the point of undertaking surveillance on a family home, there has to be a serious reason surely.

I mean we have established that just on the one day in question Julie Pacey went out to work, drove to her parents, drove to town, drove out again to an unknown location and returned. In order for a killer to have sufficient knowledge of his victim's movements to be able to pounce with such a small window of time, he would need to expect these movements. For example, it seems Julie went out again sometime between 2.45pm and 3.10pm, were these outings expected by the assailant? If not then why did he not pounce when she came home at 2.45pm?

This is again a very important point in the case; Look at the detail carefully. . .

• Julie was alive and driving her car at 3.10pm
• Julie had gone into the house, made a cup of tea, carried it upstairs and drunk some of it
• Julie had also eaten some of a chocolate bar and got her make up kit out onto the bed
• This would all have taken a few minutes, particularly for the tea to be cool enough to drink
• If the killer was 'overalls man' as suggested then he had to have been out of Longcliffe Road by 4.10pm to avoid meeting Julie's daughter Helen on her way home, as she knew what he looked like and would almost certainly have spotted him.

So it looks like the killer literally had to have either still been on the property somewhere when Helen arrived home or have got in around 3.20pm, got upstairs, violently sexually assaulted and murdered Julie and been out pf the house and gone in a maximum of 45 minutes, I guess not impossible but quite a tall order, combined with the added risk that Andrew, Julie's husband could have come home at any moment. 

It is quite disturbing to think that such a heinous crime was so finely planned, how could a man know Julie's movements that well, yet he wasn't spotted hanging around the area prior to the incident, he wasn't seen following Julie or the children. The police were able to quickly rule the husband out as a suspect due to him having been on a plumbing job on the other side of town that day. It seems the killer knew that would be the case so he would not be disturbed during his meticulously planned killing, that's scary stuff.

To be fair it is said that the land close to Julie's house on the same side of the road was vacant at the time of the murder, but again this presents several issues for a person watching the house including:

• only having a side view through a thick hedge and fence.
• due to the land being empty a person standing there or walking around on it would have been noticed.
• This is fair to say as several witnesses came forward from the local area that knew Julie Pacey and they had noticed things such as the times that Julie came and went from her home and the other vehicle which I will turn to next.

Did this killer really just carefully plan to murder Julie Pacey on that fateful Monday or would he just as happily kill whoever was within the house, without a second thought?

So we come to the dark blue BMW 5 series, an expensive motor car which had reportedly been driven on more than one occasion by Julie and on at least one occasion was parked next to her own car, an Audi on the driveway of her house. I can accept that eye-witnesses can be wrong but, separate witnesses mentioned in statements to police and media that they recalled seeing Julie actually driving the car.

If the fact that the car was actually seen parked with the Audi had not been mentioned, then I would have dismissed it on the lines of a possible mistake and the car that Julie had been seen in was actually her Audi, but that is not the case. So who did the BMW belong to? Where is the BMW? Why was Julie driving the car when she had her own car which was at her house at the time?

Why did someone more directly involved with Julie not see her in the car or with its owner? I mean, her mother and father lived just 2 miles away and her husband Andrew was a local plumber so could have popped home for tools or completed a job early and come home so if there was something untoward then Julie must have taken some risks in driving around so openly

The car could have been hired or loaned to Julie, but why? She had her own car and there are no records of the Audi being off the road for repairs and a temporary replacement courtesy car being provided.

I personally feel this is another very important missing link that should have been further investigated. Once more it is quite concerning that no one has ever come forward to claim the BMW.

Key factors that come to mind in respect of reports involving the BMW are:

• The reports are uncorroborated as the car has never been found
• There are, as far as I am aware no reports of anyone else driving the car
• There are also no reports of anyone else being seen driving Julie's Audi, so we have to assume that was at home whilst Julie drove the BMW, which is very hard to understand or explain.

Could the reports of the car be a ruse? But if so then why? Particularly when the reports were made to BBC Crimewatch UK and ultimately to police investigating a very serious crime. I don't feel the theory of a ruse holds much water as there were independent statements from more than one witness.

There are several hypotheses but none quite fit together for me. . .

Could this lady have been having an affair? I don't think it's likely but here is a suggestion: Maybe Julie was seen at 2.30pm and again at 3.10pm because she had been out trying to see or locate someone, a lover may be to try to resolve an argument? If that were the case then maybe she was either turned away or found the person not where she had expected and returned home? 

Did a “lover” turn up at the house, maybe very angry, force her to have sex and then finished off by murdering her? Again a possibility but it really doesn't seem likely, I mean he must have had ill intent from the outset if that were the case as he brought a ligature with him, obviously with intent to kill. 

Did the murderer take the watch either as a memory of her or possibly because he believed it was his money that Julie used on holiday to buy it.? Nope don't feel that is right either, but somehow, someway there has to be a reason, a motive for a middle-aged wife and mother to have been murdered in her own home.

It is fair and possible to assume that the watch was taken purely as a trophy and because of it's rare and unusual qualities it has never been able to return to the UK market, thus the assailant may still have the watch, it may have been dumped or sold abroad.

I guess this is why I see the question of the BMW to be so important to the case, yet it seems little effort has been made to find it or it's owner but why?. I mean to be fair, surely even if the owner of the car was found and eliminated from enquiries, it would have made a huge difference. Maybe we could understand why a murder victim was driving it just a few days before her untimely demise. After all, there must have been a visitor at the Pacey home just a few days before Julie's death as the BMW was on the drive next to Julie's Audi, with no driver in it.

To be fair if Julie was involved with someone that no one else was aware of, whether romantically or in some other way, which seems likely, it would explain where the car fits in.

It is likely that Julie was insured through her own car insurance to drive the BMW of course, but if there were anything untoward then why risk being seen driving when her own car was available? In fairness her husband Andrew was a local plumber and therefore could have seen Julie driving a different car and asked questions.

who was the Grantham strangler

So, let's turn our attention to the only suspect, in this case, a man in his mid-forties, stocky build, wearing a checked shirt and blue overalls, with a 'ruddy complexion', in particular very red cheeks.

At first consideration this man could have simply been someone working on the building sites on the estate bordering Longcliffe Road, where a lot of work had been going on at the time. Seemingly enquiries were made to the sites and no one matching the man's description was identified. This in itself seems quite odd to me.

Why would a man that apparently had only one purpose in Grantham, in this case to get into a house, sexually assault and murder a middle-age woman wear such identifying clothes? The thought of an old saying “Stood out like a sore thumb” comes to mind

Why if this man murdered someone and it was all over the news locally and nationally would he risk being seen in Grantham town centre even dressed in the same clothes the very next day? I understand that some killers are absolutely brazen, I mean after all Ian Huntley, the Soham killer even offered to help family and police search for his victims but, from my criminology research it is far more likely that the killer would have "made himself scarce" for at least a few days after the incident knowing that many people including the police were looking for a murderer.

As I have previously mentioned; the neighbour's daughter and in fact Julie's children recalled Julie telling them of an unusual visitor to the Pacey house at just before 3.30pm on Friday 23^rd September who matched the suspect's description very well, including the red cheeks. 

I have asked a question linked to this earlier but, I feel this point is worthy of very careful consideration. Why? I will explain. . .

Okay so this 'unidentified man' apparently called at the house on the Friday prior to Julie's murder and asked for directions, which is a very unusual and unlikely act but nonetheless we cannot prove otherwise.

Julie then told the neighbour's daughter upon her arrival and again relayed the story to Helen and Matthew when they arrived home from school sometime later. 

Now this is the bit I find a little unusual, not impossible but in my opinion at least a little strange. Why make a point of relaying the story to children who were not there and unlikely to be affected by it?

The children were out at school at the time of the man's visit and as it was not likely to happen again [if we are to believe the suggestion that he was simply seeking directions], therefore surely it could frighten or worry them unnecessarily, not the actions of a parent, surely?

Would you not protect your children from things that they didn't particularly need to know? Maybe I am overthinking some points but this one has made me curious.

Sharon Harper

So lets return to the case of Sharon Harper and just carefully go over a few points in that case. It may seem like I am jumping from one case to another and back, but I will do my best to make my reasoning apparent later. . .

Now as we know Sharon was just 21 when her life came to a tragic and abrupt end. Her boyfriend and her were planning their wedding and they had their 4-month-old child, they both had jobs and were happy by all accounts yet clearly something wasn't right.

Sharon was reportedly seen with a man about a month before her murder in Grantham town centre, this chap has never been identified. He was described as in his 30s, with long dark hair

Something wasn't right about the meeting as a friend of Sharon's said that as she was walking towards Woolworth's store she saw Sharon talking to a man on the corner of an alleyway to the rear of Morrisons. According to the friend's statement “Sharon appeared to be talking to the man earnestly”. Now I don't know exactly what 'talking earnestly' means in the witness opinion but the dictionary says “Full seriousness, as of intention or purpose” so it to me suggests speaking very firmly and maybe a little irate, determined to make a point.

This is where it gets a little more strange; When Sharon's friend came back on the same route from Woolworth's between 10 and 15 minutes later she saw Sharon was still talking with the man in the same way. The lady concerned decided to sit on a low wall there and smoke a cigarette. When she sat down Sharon walked away from the man and toward her friend. She apparently seemed quite pleased and relieved to see the friend, like something was maybe troubling her or she needed a way to get away from the man.

The man reportedly initially followed Sharon but when she stopped to speak to her friend he continued to walk on past. The friend turned to watch the man walk away and Sharon told her not to do that

The friend asked who the man was but Sharon said it didn't matter and even said she did not want to tell her friend who the guy was. Why would she do that? Could she not have simply said, “He's just a friend” or “It was someone from work”, something like that? Why out and out refuse to say who he was? This arouses suspicion particularly as the man concerned has never put himself forward for elimination, which of course suggests a possible connection.

The point of concern here that I am confused about, this 'friend' said that she had been very concerned about Sharon and the mysterious man but she did nothing and informed no one until of course it was too late and Sharon was dead. Why did the friend not maybe contact Sharon's boyfriend or maybe other mutual friends? Maybe she felt as Sharon had been bluntly clear that she did not want the identity of the man known that she should keep out of it, shame really as maybe a bit of forethought could have saved Sharon from a violent and untimely end.  

In the BBC Crimewatch reconstruction the man in the market was shown with long brown hair, wearing blue jeans, a jumper and a small canvas rucksack on his shoulder. 

Moving on to Sharon's last few hours, she went to work as usual at The Market Cross public house in Grantham, she dropped her baby daughter off at the babysitter's flat then went to work. A fairly uneventful, normal Friday night 1st July 1994. Sharon was reported to have been in a good mood and had been planning a night out on the coming Sunday night with other staff from the pub. 

Staff usually stayed behind for a short while and had a drink together after the bar closed so it was around 0015 - 0020 when Sharon set off home. Sharon was one of the last people to leave the pub that night, as was quite normal and as far as everyone knew she was on her way to collect her baby from the sitter. She would have walked along Westgate, Harlaxton Road and Trent Road. 

Sharon was reportedly seen arguing with a man with long hair in his mid-30s outside The Archways service station on Harlaxton Road a little while after she had left the pub, but this is not confirmed. The report was made by an anonymous caller on July 4th 1994. The caller said that he saw the man arguing with Sharon and stopped to enquire if everything was OK, Sharon said everything was just fine, so the person drove off.

Sharon Harper was next seen on Wharf Road, near to the roundabout around 0045 where she appeared to be trying to go into a telephone box, but a man appeared to be trying to stop her and was pulling her away. If this report is true then it would seem that for some reason Sharon had gone back toward The Market Cross Pub to the phone box. 

The second report was from a man who claimed to be a taxi driver, he again did not give any details about himself, but again chose to remain anonymous. He described the man that Sharon was with as wearing a white tee-shirt and jeans and having shoulder-length hair. Could this be our man that was seen with Sharon a month earlier near Morrisons? According to Lincolnshire police the same witnesses also indicated that they had seen Sharon with the same man before if that is so then clearly Sharon's boyfriend did not seem to know of him, so who was he and what part did he play in a young mother's life?

I am not one for accepting what I term 'half a tale'. These witnesses came forward almost as soon as the story of Sharon's murder broke, in fact, the calls were received on 4th July 1994.

The police say that they thought the callers were genuine and wanted to hear from them again because there may be so much more to discover but, they felt there were three possibilities when it comes to the callers. . .

1. The calls were purely hoaxes
2. That it was the killer trying to lay false leads
3. That they were legitimate witnesses

I personally feel it was most likely number two from the list as I don't really believe they were hoaxers. My reasoning is surely for the story to be so similar on both occasions, the calls would need to be the same person. Now whether the calls were recorded back then I cannot be certain but I imagine they would have been and certainly call handlers would have given descriptions of voices, dialects, accents and so on.

Further reasoning is that one of the callers said he knew Sharon and that he had slowed down and asked her if she was OK. He was also very specific about saying that the man seen with Sharon at Archways service station was wearing a Leeds United tee shirt, a point not mentioned by the caller that said he saw Sharon and the man near the telephone box. Not necessarily indicative of anything wrong but it does seem likely that any witness would have probably mentioned such a key point.

On the point of the Leeds United shirt, let's just analyse that a little further. Now this witness was driving a car which he said he 'slowed down', did not stop the car, but he was able to clearly establish the tee shirt to be showing the Leeds United motif, just remember it was dark and the roads would have only been lit by street lighting. Coupled with the fact it was a larger road and service station the light would have been Orange not white. Once again I'm not absolutely saying the story is fake but it seems unlikely to be a story filled with enough clarity to identify a potential suspect killer.

Sharon's boyfriend said that he had arranged to go shopping with her the next morning and when he arrived at her flat he knew something was strange as the kitchen light was on. But here I have a question. . . If Sharon left home and took the baby to the sitter's then went on to work, it surely would have been daylight when she left so no need for a light on in the kitchen. If Sharon had not returned home after dark why was the light on in the kitchen? 

I guess there is a possible explanation that she left a light on for when she got home, but as Sharon was a single parent struggling for money would it not be a bit of an expensive waste of electricity to leave a light on for maybe 6 or 7 hours, instead of simply flicking a switch when she got home? In my opinion, this is an important factor I would like cleared up.

Sharon Harper's daughter and her family are still seeking justice for her and to find out who was responsible for the tragic death well before time. Sadly Sharon's father, who brought his granddaughter up as his own after the tragedy lost his life to cancer and went to his grave without knowing who killed his precious daughter or indeed why.

Summary:

So we have two murders within just a few miles of each other in the same town in the space of 86 days, both females died of strangulation, both had recently had sex and one was beaten. 

Both cases are surrounded by a mysterious set of circumstances, maybe one more than the other, nonetheless two women died in dreadful circumstances that should not have happened.

Two families have had to grow up with a huge part missing from their lives. Both women were mums, daughters and partners in relationships, those people's lives have been destroyed too and someone is out there somewhere knowing who is responsible, almost 26 years on. 

The stories are very unusual and so interesting in many ways yet they seem to be left behind far too much. There are many, many questions that need to be answered, not least a killer or killers identified and convicted of heinous crimes. There are many things in both cases that don't quite add up in both cases, more so in the case of Julie Pacey, murdered on 26th September 1994 in my opinion. 

A very important point was raised in a newspaper article published in The Grantham Journal on 14th August 2015 in which Sara Fowler, daughter of the late Sharon Harper said that she was very disturbed by the fact that during a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction broadcast in July 2015 about the murder of Julie Pacey there was no mention of Sharon's murder, why was that I wonder. I mean as I have pointed out several times in this report both women were sexually assaulted and strangled in Grantham just a few weeks apart so why pursue one case and not the other?

Sara Fowler said that she only became aware of renewed interest in Julie Pacey's case through her family. Sara says "My other nan, my dad’s mum, told me that Julie was on the TV news, and she got quite annoyed because they didn’t actually mention my mum’s name, they just referred to her as ‘a barmaid"

https://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/daughter-s-plea-to-find-mum-sharon-harper-s-killer-in-another-grantham-murder-unsolved-for-21-years-1-6903935/

It would be great to make this story into a film and really get it out there, as sadly there are too many unsolved cases, many involving cover-ups and false leads that have gone cold held on police files and rarely even reviewed whilst the persons responsible remain at large, potentially endangering others lives every day that they are free

If you have read this blog then firstly thank you and I hope that you have enjoyed it, if so please do subscribe as there are more to come. More importantly, if you have read this and feel that you have any information that will help the police then do please contact:

Grantham Police: 01522 532222

Crimestoppers: 0800 555 111

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_t9wh-pjv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKGQ_d_-KxM&t=252s


Disclaimer: Please note all information in the research of this case has been sourced from the internet and is not meant for evidence and accuracy cannot be guaranteed beyond doubt