UK - Julia James, 53, murdered, Snowdown, Kent, 27 April 2021 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears from this that others also lived in the house.

I do not take that much from his comments about not seeing them as I rarely see my neighbours come in and out unless I am in the front garden or actively looking out of the window.

Odd that he refers to 'them' who he has never seen, how many I wonder?
 
I live not too far from Canterbury & the local media like Meridian News & BBC South East really have been very lazy & desperate trying to tie it in to a crime from 25 years ago-based on nothing more than it happening in the same county & a woman died from blunt force trauma to the head-which is a very common way for people to be murdered. The dog wasn't killed here like the dog was then & no children were involved-so it actually has less in common with 1996 than it does.

As for the neighbour I couldn't agree more to just how worthless that statement is-we are barely in the room & keep the blinds drawn, yet never see anybody. Just as trite as the you don't expect this type of thing to happen in an area like this vox pops with the locals we have seen in this case & every other murder where the news crews turn up.
 
My own perspective.
It's 25 years since the Russell murders, a very long time for a serial offender's cooling off period. A copycat is more likely, or just a dubious ruse to throw the police out of kilter in Julia's murder.
And, regarding animal bite marks, I would think any bite, even one several days old, would yield foreign DNA when swabbed.

That link is purely a media invention from our lazy tabloids & desperate news teams trying to sell copies & increase ratings. Blunt force trauma to the head is probably the most common form of murder. Most killers aren't thinking about 25 year old murders to throw cops off, most of them are killing in haste either in a robbery gone wrong, lust, rage etc. Also in this case the person being interviewed who is the prime suspect likely wasn't even born, or was a toddler when that happened.
 
That would describe the man in the photo Kent Police released earlier in the week. I would be surprised if there is more than 1 person of that description around that area. It's a very WASP, middle-aged and middle-England sort of a place.

Reading the article that incident was in Ashford, about 20 miles away, so I think there would actually probably be a lot of people matching that general description in that big an area. Says also "dark hair, which was short at the sides and longer on the top" which doesn't quite match the photo from this incident, but as the Ashford incident was back in March that doesn't mean much.
 
Could he have tried to snatch Toby for use as a bait dog in dog fights?

I’m not an expert but I am a longtime Jack Russell mum and I think it’s unlikely the breed would be targeted for dog fighting bait.
However, I am one of the few on here who still thinks dog theft for financial gain might possibly have been the original motive. If a snatch attempt had been made, Julia would probably have fought like hell to protect her dog and may then have been attacked when she put up a fight. That of course presupposes that the assailant had something with him that could be used as a weapon, or else used something he found at the scene, such as a fallen piece of branch or similar. JMO, not seen any direct evidence for this.
 
I’m not an expert but I am a longtime Jack Russell mum and I think it’s unlikely the breed would be targeted for dog fighting bait.
However, I am one of the few on here who still thinks dog theft for financial gain might possibly have been the original motive. If a snatch attempt had been made, Julia would probably have fought like hell to protect her dog and may then have been attacked when she put up a fight. That of course presupposes that the assailant had something with him that could be used as a weapon, or else used something he found at the scene, such as a fallen piece of branch or similar. JMO, not seen any direct evidence for this.
It is a bit OTT to kill someone for a dog
 
That link is purely a media invention from our lazy tabloids & desperate news teams trying to sell copies & increase ratings. Blunt force trauma to the head is probably the most common form of murder. Most killers aren't thinking about 25 year old murders to throw cops off, most of them are killing in haste either in a robbery gone wrong, lust, rage etc. Also in this case the person being interviewed who is the prime suspect likely wasn't even born, or was a toddler when that happened.
I totally agree there is no connection between this murder and the Russells, but this looks like an ambush murder, and therefore premeditated. I have close contacts living within 5 miles of Snowdown, and I would say that the Russell murder was etched on their collective unconscious, so I guess I'm just underlining the obvious:- it's a local perpetrator, not a stranger to the district.
 
It is a bit OTT to kill someone for a dog
It is over the top but situations can escalate quickly and people can do the most irrational things. The dog knapping theory would sound absolutely bonkers to me if I hadn't heard so much about it actually happening in the last twelve months locally here in south wales. The thefts are predominantly for financial reasons from what I have heard as dog prices have gone through the roof since the lockdown. But the people responsible are as bold as brass, prepared to operate in broad daylight and are not afraid to use violence.

Here's one example : Dognappers come off worse after trying to steal former boxer's pet
 
Not sure if this has been posted before in the thread, apologies if it has been...

'The suspect was described as being around 5ft 10in, of mixed race, slim and aged between 25 and 30.'

Man tries to snatch teen's dog in broad daylight

tbh it matches the description of atleast 10 people living on my road alone, dog thefts have become so common that unfortunately there’s likely to be an article with a description to match the appearance of anyone.
Of course always a possibility but IMO unlikely
 
My money would be more on a mental health issue-quite a few similar types of attacks on people here in wooded areas-sometimes while they are walking their dog in recent years for no discernible reason, other than the person involved tends to have a long history of hearing voices or talking to their therapists etc about wanting to hurt people, or a sexual motive, she resisted & he killed her in a rage-doesn't appear to have been any semen found on her or by her, so it would seem if that was the motive likely indicate the person was unable to sexually assault her & killed her when she fought back.
 
My money would be more on a mental health issue-quite a few similar types of attacks on people here in wooded areas-sometimes while they are walking their dog in recent years for no discernible reason, other than the person involved tends to have a long history of hearing voices or talking to their therapists etc about wanting to hurt people, or a sexual motive, she resisted & he killed her in a rage-doesn't appear to have been any semen found on her or by her, so it would seem if that was the motive likely indicate the person was unable to sexually assault her & killed her when she fought back.
I do tend to agree with you and it may explain the weapon. I am wondering whether the weapon was a wood object - there are an awful lots of them in the woods where I walk my dog.
 
I do tend to agree with you and it may explain the weapon. I am wondering whether the weapon was a wood object - there are an awful lots of them in the woods where I walk my dog.

Usually plenty or stones/rocks around as well. Often people will just dump/fly-tip old junk in those areas if they aren't covered by CCTV-so quite easily the perpetrator could have found a lead pipe or cosh of some sort.
 
"Anthony Opie, 26, lives opposite the house and says the occupants "keep themselves to themselves".

"I don't think 'them' is being used to mean a plural, but rather an unknown."

Looks very plural to me.

I suppose it could be, I was just offering up some thoughts on the oddness of using a definite plural when the man doesn't seem to know how many people definitely live there.

IMO, the colloquial use of keeping 'themselves to themselves'/I've never met them, could just as easily refer to an unknown occupant(s) as opposed to saying that there are definitely multiple people living there. I think a lot of people would say "I've never met them" when asked if they'd met a new neighbour, without implying there is more than one person in the house. It 'can' just mean that you don't know how many or the gender(s). It might not be proper use, but it is often used colloquially.

I also think it's a house that I'd expect more than one person to live in (on average) so there could well be more than one person there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
4,234
Total visitors
4,319

Forum statistics

Threads
592,400
Messages
17,968,413
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top