UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Off Topic and General Discussions => Off topic, general discussions and the Wide Awake Club. => Topic started by: Admin on June 10, 2018, 02:00:14 PM
-
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article12722244.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Glyn-Razzell.jpg)
Former banker Glyn Razzell was convicted of the murder of his wife Linda in 2002.
For UK viewers awaiting their next true crime obsession, the answer may well come in the form of the BBC Two show, Conviction: Murder in Suburbia. The two-part documentary follows Inside Justice investigators as they re-examine the 2002 disappearance of Linda Razzell and subsequent murder conviction of her husband, Glyn. So, who is Glyn Razzell? And why is speculation about his prosecution intriguing enough for its own show?
Glyn Razzell first came to public attention in 2002 when his estranged wife Linda went missing on March 19, 2002 on her way to work at Swindon College in Wiltshire, the Guardian reports. Its believed that on the day of her disappearance, Linda — a 41-year-old learning support assistant — left home at 8.40 a.m. and parked her car on a street near to her workplace but never actually arrived at work. Neither Linda nor her remains have ever been found.
Despite the lack of body, Linda's husband Glyn was charged with murdering Linda in May 2002 and later convicted in November 2003, following a murder trial in which he pleaded not-guilty, the Guardian reports. Glyn Razzell has consistently denied that he committed the crime. The Mirror reports Glyn and Linda were in the midst of divorce proceedings when she disappeared. Indeed, the couple's divorce were reportedly due to be finalised in July 2002 (four months after Linda went missing), according to The Sun, with the prosecution alleging that Glyn killed Linda after she won a court order freezing his bank accounts.
So why is the story back in the news? Well, Glyn has continued to deny his guilt and fight his conviction. A former investment banker, the Mirror reports he has previously suggested Linda staged her own murder — and implicated him in the crime — to start a new life. In scenes from the first Conviction: Murder in Suburbia episode, Glyn still raises the possibility of Linda being alive, as well as denying all involvement in her disappearance and possible death. He tells investigator Louise Shorter: “I had nothing to do with [Linda's] disappearance at all and I don’t know whether she’s dead or not for sure.”
Despite maintaining his innocence, Somerset Live reports Glyn's "numerous appeals" contesting his murder charge have all thus far been rejected. Indeed, vital evidence in Glyn's original murder trial — and what is believed to have been the most significant factor in his ultimate conviction — is the fact that Linda's blood was found in the boot of a friend's car which Glyn was driving on the day she went missing. According to the BBC Two Conviction: Murder in Suburbia episode guide, Glyn has always protested that the blood was planted in the vehicle and that Linda's death was" staged," but it seems this argument has never held up in court.
https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-glyn-razzell-the-conviction-murder-in-suburbia-subject-will-be-your-next-true-crime-obsession-9491895
26
-
Listening to him talk to Louise Shorter; his speech, the way he blames his victim, it's all there. I'm surprised Inside Justice bothered wasting time on this case when it's blatantly obvious he's guilty as sin.
The prosecution case is just a theory. Without an honest admission of guilt from Razzell one can only surmise what happened to his ex wife. This fact appears to have been lost.
"But things began to backfire for Razzell when he was suddenly offered a lie detector test to help him prove his innocence.
At first, the killer told the Inside Justice team of crime experts followed during the show that he would be happy to do it, as long as he was warned when it would take place so he could “prepare”.
But at the last minute he refused the polygraph test, blasting it as “pseudo-science” and “taking it down to Jeremy Kyle level”.
He says on the programme, screened this week: “I never wanted to do it. I’m worried about a false positive. I don’t think it’s reliable. I just can’t see the benefit"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wife-killer-refuses-lie-detector-12723051
-
Listening to him talk to Louise Shorter; his speech, the way he blames his victim, it's all there. I'm surprised Inside Justice bothered wasting time on this case when it's blatantly obvious he's guilty as sin.
The prosecution case is just a theory. Without an honest admission of guilt from Razzell one can only surmise what happened to his ex wife. This fact appears to have been lost.
"But things began to backfire for Razzell when he was suddenly offered a lie detector test to help him prove his innocence.
At first, the killer told the Inside Justice team of crime experts followed during the show that he would be happy to do it, as long as he was warned when it would take place so he could “prepare”.
But at the last minute he refused the polygraph test, blasting it as “pseudo-science” and “taking it down to Jeremy Kyle level”.
He says on the programme, screened this week: “I never wanted to do it. I’m worried about a false positive. I don’t think it’s reliable. I just can’t see the benefit"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wife-killer-refuses-lie-detector-12723051
Totally agree, also he explanation of how her blood ended up in the boot is laughable.
-
I agree . He did seem very cocky and quite rehearsed while trying not to get mad when she posed uncomfortable questions. Maybe tonight will highlight something else but his reply to the polygraph test didn't bode well.
The blood would take some explaining if he wasn't responsible, not sure anyone bought the 'it was planted' line but yet it did take 3 attempts to find it
Either wrongly accused or rightly convicted, not sure how any of us would come across to others. Anger isn't accepted but then neither is calm
I am sure Louise Shorter will have a good take on it.
-
Totally agree, also he explanation of how her blood ended up in the boot is laughable.
Ugh. Guilty McGuiltface. What a ridiculous waste of time and money.
%56&
-
I agree . He did seem very cocky and quite rehearsed while trying not to get mad when she posed uncomfortable questions. Maybe tonight will highlight something else but his reply to the polygraph test didn't bode well.
The blood would take some explaining if he wasn't responsible, not sure anyone bought the 'it was planted' line but yet it did take 3 attempts to find it
Either wrongly accused or rightly convicted, not sure how any of us would come across to others. Anger isn't accepted but then neither is calm
I am sure Louise Shorter will have a good take on it.
Why would Louise Shorter "have a good take on it?"
First off, as already pointed out, the police and prosecution case is a theory which Louise Shorter appears to have been going along with as fact?
What about alternative narratives?
It was explained why it took 3 attempts to find the blood. Whilst it could appear to suggest shoddy police investigation it could also suggest the police didn't originally think Razzell had put his ex wife's body in the boot of his mates car, and they initially just followed basic procedures as opposed to a more thorough analysis, as with the 3 rd attempt.
Glyn Razzell was in prison with Simon Hall in HMP Kingston and as guilty then as he is now.
If people like Louise Shorter want to be taken seriously then they really should play catch up and learn some basic lessons in separating fact from fiction. I found the entire programme ameaurish.
Razzell displayed quite obvious traits of psychopathy during his telephone conversations with Shorter. It's a shame her and her team don't concentrate on educating themselves and others re personality disorders as opposed the rubbish they showed last night.
-
He'd previously pushed his ex wife through a glass door!
His admittance and down playing of the gravity of his quite apparent violent nature was a BIG clue; added with all the others - including the fact his children want nothing to do with him. I bet their witness statements are eye openers!?
-
Totally agree, also he explanation of how her blood ended up in the boot is laughable.
Reminds me of the Adrian Prout case.
And Nick Ward; Nicholas Rose etc etc
-
Why would Louise Shorter "have a good take on it?"
First off, as already pointed out, the police and prosecution case is a theory which Louise Shorter appears to have been going along with as fact?
What about alternative narratives?
It was explained why it took 3 attempts to find the blood. Whilst it could appear to suggest shoddy police investigation it could also suggest the police didn't originally think Razzell had put his ex wife's body in the boot of his mates car, and they initially just followed basic procedures as opposed to a more thorough analysis, as with the 3 rd attempt.
Glyn Razzell was in prison with Simon Hall in HMP Kingston and as guilty then as he is now.
If people like Louise Shorter want to be taken seriously then they really should play catch up and learn some basic lessons in separating fact from fiction. I found the entire programme ameaurish.
Razzell displayed quite obvious traits of psychopathy during his telephone conversations with Shorter. It's a shame her and her team don't concentrate on educating themselves and others re personality disorders as opposed the rubbish they showed last night.
Glyn Razzell admitted to being violent towards his wife during his phone conversation with Ms Shorter, regardless of his acquittal in court. Men like him can be convincing and conniving and his wife didn't really stand a chance of having her voice heard; at least not in life.
It doesn't surprise me she had mental health problems. 17 years with a psychopath is a long time!
https://glynrazzell.org.uk/case-overview/
"Linda had a history of making false allegations of domestic violence against Glyn which had led to charges, however when the court heard the full facts Glyn was acquitted. Allegations were made just days before key divorce hearings. Subsequently at the hearings Glyn was disadvantaged by the allegations pending which were used by Linda’s solicitors to wrongly attack Glyn’s character. No allegations of violence or misconduct had ever been made against Glyn until the divorce started.
Linda has a long history of mental illness and has been a patient at Goodmayes Mental Hospital in Essex and Seymour Clinic Psychiatric Unit in Swindon.
-
Ugh. Guilty McGuiltface. What a ridiculous waste of time and money.
%56&
AND....there were far too many close-ups of LS's eyeliner and dodgy bottom teeth.
*&^^&
-
yes...what was that all about? 8)--))
-
As far as I know, neither Glyn Razzell, nor Jeremy Bamber have actually been diagnosed as psychopaths.
As far as I know, the latter did take a lie detector test, passed it, yet most people on this forum think he's guilty.
I can't claim to know much about lie detector tests, but I have heard that it's possible to pass one if you really believe that you're innocent, even if you're not! Like Glyn Razzell, I would be afraid of what it might throw up, even if I knew I was innocent, so I don't blame him for refusing to do it.
I watched the programme last night, and still believe in his innocence. Part 2 might have me eating my words----who knows!
-
lets hope tonight's programme gives us more to go on. We always assume how people would act in certain settings but we dont even really know how we would react ourselves.
Right now there hasnt been anything that shouts out wrongly convicted but like you say mrswah who knows what will be shown tonight.
I will be watching with interest.
-
I watched the programme last night, and still believe in his innocence. Part 2 might have me eating my words----who knows!
What makes you think he's innocent?
-
As far as I know, neither Glyn Razzell, nor Jeremy Bamber have actually been diagnosed as psychopaths.
Diagnosis or not IMO they both present with numerous psychopathic traits
-
lets hope tonight's programme gives us more to go on. We always assume how people would act in certain settings but we dont even really know how we would react ourselves.
Right now there hasnt been anything that shouts out wrongly convicted but like you say mrswah who knows what will be shown tonight.
I will be watching with interest.
Today, after reviewing the case at London's Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Pitchers ruled that the minimum jail "tariff" Razzell deserves for his crime is 16 years.
Even after time he spent on remand before his trial is taken into account, the judge's ruling means that Razzell cannot even apply for parole until late 2019.
The judge said the couple married in 1983 and had four children. However, Mrs Razzell confessed to her husband a brief affair she had had in 1999 and their marriage declined into bitterness.
Razzell, who worked for Allied Dunbar, himself began a new relationship and his wife launched divorce proceedings in 2000. He moved out soon afterwards, leaving her to look after their children.
As the rancorous divorce case ground on, Razzell was ordered to pay £650-a-month in child maintenance. He lost his job in 2001 and the battle ground between husband and wife moved on to his lump sum severance package, the whereabouts of which he refused to disclose.
In 2002, Mrs Razzell's solicitors obtained a freezing order against her husband's bank account and the judge said he must have realised that he was likely to lose his share of the matrimonial home and a proportion of his severance package.
Mr Justice Pitchers added: "This would have had a greater impact on him than on most men because the evidence in the case showed that he placed an exceptionally high importance on money and would have been extremely resentful that his wife seemed to be getting the better of him in this area".
Setting Razzell's minimum jail tariff at 16 years, the judge described him as an "obsessive planner" who had made careful notes of meetings and "a series of 'What if' flowcharts concerning the possible outcomes of his wife's disappearance".
The arrangement to swap cars for the day with a friend would have enabled him to approach his wife without arousing her suspicions.
Describing it as "a planned killing carried out in cold blood", the judge added: "His motive was partly money and partly anger that his wife was getting the better of him. The sums involved were not large, but they meant a great deal to him".
The murder had robbed Razzell's four children of their mother and the judge said: "He came across as an extremely unemotional man who looked first at the financial consequences of his actions".
Observing that there were "no mitigating features", the judge said that, were Razzell being sentenced for the first time today, under tougher guidelines now in force, he would have given him an 18-year minimum jail term.
Once Razzell has served his 16-year minimum term, he will still only be freed if he can persuade the Parole Board he poses no serious public danger. When, and if, released, he will remain on perpetual "life licence", subject to prison recall if he puts a foot wrong ever again
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/2126047.Wife_murderer_will_serve_at_least_16_years/
-
lets hope tonight's programme gives us more to go on. We always assume how people would act in certain settings but we dont even really know how we would react ourselves.
Right now there hasnt been anything that shouts out wrongly convicted but like you say mrswah who knows what will be shown tonight.
I will be watching with interest.
Louise Shorter described Razzell as "rattled" when he informed her he didn't want to take the lie detector test. I'd call him controlling. His comment about not having his day disrupted was telling to say the least and again indicative of his pathology.
-
As far as I know, neither Glyn Razzell, nor Jeremy Bamber have actually been diagnosed as psychopaths.
As far as I know, the latter did take a lie detector test, passed it, yet most people on this forum think he's guilty.
I can't claim to know much about lie detector tests, but I have heard that it's possible to pass one if you really believe that you're innocent, even if you're not! Like Glyn Razzell, I would be afraid of what it might throw up, even if I knew I was innocent, so I don't blame him for refusing to do it.
I watched the programme last night, and still believe in his innocence. Part 2 might have me eating my words----who knows!
Really? How can you think he's innocent when his wife's blood ended up in the boot of a car that was only borrowed for a short time?
-
Today, after reviewing the case at London's Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Pitchers ruled that the minimum jail "tariff" Razzell deserves for his crime is 16 years.
Even after time he spent on remand before his trial is taken into account, the judge's ruling means that Razzell cannot even apply for parole until late 2019.
The judge said the couple married in 1983 and had four children. However, Mrs Razzell confessed to her husband a brief affair she had had in 1999 and their marriage declined into bitterness.
Razzell, who worked for Allied Dunbar, himself began a new relationship and his wife launched divorce proceedings in 2000. He moved out soon afterwards, leaving her to look after their children.
As the rancorous divorce case ground on, Razzell was ordered to pay £650-a-month in child maintenance. He lost his job in 2001 and the battle ground between husband and wife moved on to his lump sum severance package, the whereabouts of which he refused to disclose.
In 2002, Mrs Razzell's solicitors obtained a freezing order against her husband's bank account and the judge said he must have realised that he was likely to lose his share of the matrimonial home and a proportion of his severance package.
Mr Justice Pitchers added: "This would have had a greater impact on him than on most men because the evidence in the case showed that he placed an exceptionally high importance on money and would have been extremely resentful that his wife seemed to be getting the better of him in this area".
Setting Razzell's minimum jail tariff at 16 years, the judge described him as an "obsessive planner" who had made careful notes of meetings and "a series of 'What if' flowcharts concerning the possible outcomes of his wife's disappearance".
The arrangement to swap cars for the day with a friend would have enabled him to approach his wife without arousing her suspicions.
Describing it as "a planned killing carried out in cold blood", the judge added: "His motive was partly money and partly anger that his wife was getting the better of him. The sums involved were not large, but they meant a great deal to him".
The murder had robbed Razzell's four children of their mother and the judge said: "He came across as an extremely unemotional man who looked first at the financial consequences of his actions".
Observing that there were "no mitigating features", the judge said that, were Razzell being sentenced for the first time today, under tougher guidelines now in force, he would have given him an 18-year minimum jail term.
Once Razzell has served his 16-year minimum term, he will still only be freed if he can persuade the Parole Board he poses no serious public danger. When, and if, released, he will remain on perpetual "life licence", subject to prison recall if he puts a foot wrong ever again
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/2126047.Wife_murderer_will_serve_at_least_16_years/
Razzell is another chancer adding to the endless list of chancers - including Bamber.
It's interesting to learn that he's now in open prison conditions having failed to own up to murdering Linda Razzell; thus having not been rehabilitated.
I wonder how the parole board will deal with this, especially after the Worboys case and cases like it?
-
Also interesting to note in this case is the fact that when Razzell was arrested police found a noose set up in his loft, yet no mention of it in the documentary?
I don't think his story deserved to be told. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/06/20/conviction-murder-suburbia-review-story-deserves-told/
I do however think he should be ordered to own up to where Linda Razzells body is before he is allowed out of prison; though I imagine he's already been allowed out on licence for days out if he only has a year of his sentence left?
Does anyone know?
-
Really? How can you think he's innocent when his wife's blood ended up in the boot of a car that was only borrowed for a short time?
Have a read of Chapter 1 of "The Nicholas Cases" by Bob Woffinden. It mentions several matters that were not mentioned in the TV documentary.
-
Have a read of Chapter 1 of "The Nicholas Cases" by Bob Woffinden. It mentions several matters that were not mentioned in the TV documentary.
Maybe it does, but you really can't get passed the blood in the boot. Plus there seems to be a lot of rumour and gossip surrounding affairs etc.
-
Have a read of Chapter 1 of "The Nicholas Cases" by Bob Woffinden. It mentions several matters that were not mentioned in the TV documentary.
I wasn't aware Bob Woffinden passed away last month?
-
I wasn't aware Bob Woffinden passed away last month?
I hadn't realised that either.
-
I hadn't realised that either.
Very sad. He was only 70! 8(8-))
-
Totally agree, also he explanation of how her blood ended up in the boot is laughable.
Nick Rose is another prisoner maintaining innocence; he also refused to take a lie detector test and admit where his victims body is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1483791/Girls-murderer-jailed-for-life-but-refuses-to-say-where-her-body-is.html
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/who-killed-charlotte-pinkney
https://court-appeal.vlex.co.uk/vid/-52563793
-
I must say I found the Inside Justice investigation on BBC2 tonight extremely interesting. Several points stood out but what really took the biscuit was that Glyn Razzell bottled it when faced with the polygraph after agreeing all along to have one. Ultimately though, it was the damning blood spatter from his wife which was found in the boot of the Renault Laguna he had borrowed which sealed his fate and ended all hope for him that this conviction could ever be set aside.
Like Bamber, I fear Razzell will never be able to come to terms with his guilt.
-
I must say I found the Inside Justice investigation on BBC2 tonight extremely interesting. Several points stood out but what really took the biscuit was that Glyn Razzell bottled it when faced with the polygraph after agreeing all along to have one. Ultimately though, it was the damning blood spatter from his wife which was found in the boot of the Renault Laguna he had borrowed which sealed his fate and ended all hope for him that this conviction could ever be set aside.
Like Bamber, I fear Razzell will never be able to come to terms with his guilt.
I found the Inside Justice investigation very interesting too, but I do not feel that Glyn Razzell's guilt is cut and dried. It did surprise me, however, that a man who has been in prison for some 14 years could sound so composed on the telephone. Of course, he might be guilty, but I am still pondering the following:
I would like to know more about the supposed connection with Christopher Halliwell. The Inside Justice team could not verify this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was no connection.
In the first chapter of Bob Woffinden's "The Nicholas Cases", he says that a bloodstained t shirt belonging to Linda's partner was found under their bed, and that the blood matched Linda's. I would be interested to know more about this too.
There were a number of sightings, supposedly of Linda, after the date when she disappeared. We could dismiss this as "hearsay" or "mistakes" or "gossip", but at least one of the people knew Linda well, and she was not called to give evidence at the trial.
On the day before her disappearance, Linda and her partner were said to have visited three banks, Linda had put a question mark beside the date March 19th on her calendar, and had researched travel tickets. According to Woffinden, Linda 's partner had been" doing his research" on Glyn Razzell, and where he lived, and a photograph of the house he was renting was found on a computer belonging to either Linda or her partner.
I agree that Linda's blood in the car that Razzell was using on 19th March is damning, but it is also interesting that this car had previously been thoroughly examined and no blood had been found. The owner of the car had also cleaned it thoroughly, and he didn't spot any blood either. This blood was said to be visible.
Luminol, apparently, can react to substances other than blood. IMO, this case is more complicated than some of us think!
-
I found the Inside Justice investigation very interesting too, but I do not feel that Glyn Razzell's guilt is cut and dried. It did surprise me, however, that a man who has been in prison for some 14 years could sound so composed on the telephone. Of course, he might be guilty, but I am still pondering the following:
I would like to know more about the supposed connection with Christopher Halliwell. The Inside Justice team could not verify this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was no connection.
In the first chapter of Bob Woffinden's "The Nicholas Cases", he says that a bloodstained t shirt belonging to Linda's partner was found under their bed, and that the blood matched Linda's. I would be interested to know more about this too.
There were a number of sightings, supposedly of Linda, after the date when she disappeared. We could dismiss this as "hearsay" or "mistakes" or "gossip", but at least one of the people knew Linda well, and she was not called to give evidence at the trial.
On the day before her disappearance, Linda and her partner were said to have visited three banks, Linda had put a question mark beside the date March 19th on her calendar, and had researched travel tickets. According to Woffinden, Linda 's partner had been" doing his research" on Glyn Razzell, and where he lived, and a photograph of the house he was renting was found on a computer belonging to either Linda or her partner.
I agree that Linda's blood in the car that Razzell was using on 19th March is damning, but it is also interesting that this car had previously been thoroughly examined and no blood had been found. The owner of the car had also cleaned it thoroughly, and he didn't spot any blood either. This blood was said to be visible.
Luminol, apparently, can react to substances other than blood. IMO, this case is more complicated than some of us think!
It may well do, but it can't test positive for Linda's DNA if her DNA wasn't present.
-
It may well do, but it can't test positive for Linda's DNA if her DNA wasn't present.
Point taken, Caroline!
I do wonder how reliable the forensic evidence in this case actually is: neither Linda, nor her body were present when the blood was supposedly matched to her.
I also find it very strange that the blood was only noticed after the car had been examined thoroughly, and cleaned by its owner.
I also find it odd that no other evidence of Linda's presence was found in the car.
https://glynrazzell.org.uk/case-overview
https://insidetime.org/the-case-of-glyn-razzell/
-
Point taken, Caroline!
I do wonder how reliable the forensic evidence in this case actually is: neither Linda, nor her body were present when the blood was supposedly matched to her.
I also find it very strange that the blood was only noticed after the car had been examined thoroughly, and cleaned by its owner.
I also find it odd that no other evidence of Linda's presence was found in the car.
https://glynrazzell.org.uk/case-overview
https://insidetime.org/the-case-of-glyn-razzell/
You don't need the body of someone to test for DNA.
I guess they didn't find blood because they weren't initially looking for it. The blood spatter experts in the programme said they would have been easily missed. I don't think it's unusual for police to search something more than once.
We don't know that there was no other presence - remember the sweepings?
-
You don't need the body of someone to test for DNA.
I guess they didn't find blood because they weren't initially looking for it. The blood spatter experts in the programme said they would have been easily missed. I don't think it's unusual for police to search something more than once.
We don't know that there was no other presence - remember the sweepings?
Yes----the "hooverings" as Louise Shorter referred to them. I know she couldn't get access to them, but were they never analysed by anyone at the time?
I don't believe blood was never looked for : the car was examined thoroughly at the time, and, if Woffinden is to be believed, the police found "no evidence of blood or recent cleaning." If the police believed Linda had been harmed or killed, they would certainly have been looking for blood, among other things .
Why examine the car yet again, having found nothing incriminating previously, and why examine it after its owner had cleaned it?
Luminol destroys the sample being tested, so it cannot be tested again, nor can anyone challenge the expert's findings. How convenient!
-
Yes----the "hooverings" as Louise Shorter referred to them. I know she couldn't get access to them, but were they never analysed by anyone at the time?
I don't believe blood was never looked for : the car was examined thoroughly at the time, and, if Woffinden is to be believed, the police found "no evidence of blood or recent cleaning." If the police believed Linda had been harmed or killed, they would certainly have been looking for blood, among other things .
Why examine the car yet again, having found nothing incriminating previously, and why examine it after its owner had cleaned it?
Luminol destroys the sample being tested, so it cannot be tested again, nor can anyone challenge the expert's findings. How convenient!
OK, when they used Luminol, they wouldn't have covered the whole of the boot in it. Once the blood was detected they would have used other methods to obtain samples for testing - otherwise they wouldn't have been able to back-up the claim that DNA matched Linda's. They have to show evidence just saying the blood matched Linda's woud hardly have stood against a defence cross examination without evidence.
-
OK, when they used Luminol, they wouldn't have covered the whole of the boot in it. Once the blood was detected they would have used other methods to obtain samples for testing - otherwise they wouldn't have been able to back-up the claim that DNA matched Linda's. They have to show evidence just saying the blood matched Linda's woud hardly have stood against a defence cross examination without evidence.
Do you know if the forensic evidence was cross examined by the defence? I can't find much about the trial !!
-
Do you know if the forensic evidence was cross examined by the defence? I can't find much about the trial !!
It would have been, that's the point of a defense. No, there isn't that much online and newspapers can often be misleading.
-
It would have been, that's the point of a defense. No, there isn't that much online and newspapers can often be misleading.
Well, ideally, that's the point of a defence-------------
-
Well, ideally, that's the point of a defence-------------
I don't hear anyone (including Razzell himself), complaining that it wasn't.
-
Watched this programme last night , imo he is guilty, refusing to take the polygraph plus his weak alibi and blood in the boot did it for me. It's a classic case of violence against spouse , a shame she didn't succeed in getting a conviction when he was violent to her previously.
-
He does back off when he’s going to be confronted. I offered to drive down to have a chat with him but he refused on account of it not being of any advantage to him. He did have a point though, but I maintained that Linda Razzell was a victim of our primary suspect but this was only based on the fact that he had recently moved his place of work to the immediate vicinity where Razzell’s car was parked when she, like the others, completely disappeared.
-
He does back off when he’s going to be confronted. I offered to drive down to have a chat with him but he refused on account of it not being of any advantage to him. He did have a point though, but I maintained that Linda Razzell was a victim of our primary suspect but this was only based on the fact that he had recently moved his place of work to the immediate vicinity where Razzell’s car was parked when she, like the others, completely disappeared.
Do you think he is guilty, AH?
-
No, I don’t believe he is guilty. What I do believe is that he isn’t the slightest bit sorry for her, if somebody murdered her he would doubtless have permitted himself a self satisfied smug grin. Razzell has followed the line that she staged her own disappearance and there are some witness statements to support that notion but no hard evidence either way. I think he’s naturally suspicious of people that want to talk to him, give his position I’m rather sympathetic to that but you know who was in the area and it’s got to be a real consideration overall.
AH
-
totally unbelievable that she staged her own disappearance *%87 he's 100 % guilty imo
-
I think you're right Indigo, it would be very difficult for a woman to walk away from her own children like that and start a new life, undiscovered. But I also, having walked the route along that alleyway / mini road that Razzell would have taken, can not perceive where such an attack as a violet assault, abduction, and placing a perhaps unconscious or dead person into the boot of a Laguna could have been carried off without someone seeing something. I think she was planning to meet someone she already knew, someone in her own field of work who has both a predisposition to execute his unsuspecting victims and has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to leave evidence for the police to follow up on. He has identifiably given two specific names to the police and both those unsuspecting suspects discovered what the blind, procedural loving, gullible boys in blue will do to try and get a conviction on them.
-
I think you're right Indigo, it would be very difficult for a woman to walk away from her own children like that and start a new life, undiscovered. But I also, having walked the route along that alleyway / mini road that Razzell would have taken, can not perceive where such an attack as a violet assault, abduction, and placing a perhaps unconscious or dead person into the boot of a Laguna could have been carried off without someone seeing something. I think she was planning to meet someone she already knew, someone in her own field of work who has both a predisposition to execute his unsuspecting victims and has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to leave evidence for the police to follow up on. He has identifiably given two specific names to the police and both those unsuspecting suspects discovered what the blind, procedural loving, gullible boys in blue will do to try and get a conviction on them.
I understand what you are saying, AH.
I don't believe Glyn Razzell is guilty, and I have spent a lot of time this week investigating the case.
-
.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6740011/
Interesting----------------