Glynn Razzell

THE UNIQUE CASE OF GLYNN RAZZELL
By Scott Lomax

The case of Glyn Razzell could very well be unique in British criminal history in that the woman who Razzell was convicted of murdering is quite conceivably still alive today.

In April 2003 a murder trial was sensationally ended in Australia when it emerged the 'victim' was alive and well. Leonard Fraser, a suspected serial killer, stood trial for killing Natasha Ryan, who was reported missing at the age of fourteen. No body had ever been found but Fraser had confessed to the murder nonetheless. It was only during his trial that Fraser's innocence was proven in a manner which surprised both prosecution and defence counsels alike; it emerged that Natasha had staged her disappearance and not informed anyone except for her boyfriend who assisted her in living, undetected, in her hometown for five years. Could it be the case that in Britain a similar disappearance can be explained in this manner? In 2003 Glyn Razzell was convicted of the murder of his estranged wife, Linda Razzell, and sentenced to life imprisonment despite evidence suggesting Linda was not killed at all. The difference between Fraser and Razzell, however, is that Glyn Razzell continues to protest he is innocent yet has been convicted of the murder.

The 'Abduction' of Linda Razzell and the Scene of the Crime
It was on the morning of 19 March 2002 that Linda Razzell, a forty-one year old part-time teaching assistant, was apparently abducted in the town centre of Swindon, Wiltshire. Linda normally left her home at 08:40, but on this particular day she was forced to leave fifteen minutes later because one of her children could not find their homework. After leaving home at around 08:55 a witness saw Linda walking along the alleyway near to where she parked her car, in Swinton town centre. Although a precise time of the sighting has never been determined, what is known is that Linda usually parked her car at 08:50 and then walked to work, arriving at between 09:00 and 09:15. Therefore the sighting is most likely to have occurred between 09:15 and 09:30. If we are to believe the account of the prosecution at Razzell's trial then within minutes of parking her car she was bundled into a Renault Laguna used by Razzell, without arousing suspicion and without leaving any traces of a struggle, whilst walking along the alleyway. Was Linda taken against her will, however, or did she choose to disappear, like Natasha Ryan, and allow an innocent man to stand trial for her murder? Whether she was abducted and killed, as the prosecution believe, or simply fled the country and is still alive, as the defence argued, Linda's body has never been found.

Over two hundred locations, known to Razzell, were searched in the hope of finding Linda's body. Furthermore teams of police dog handlers undertook an exhaustive search of the region, police officers trained in searching for bodies who used heat seeking devices, divers who searched rivers and local residents participated in search parties.

Linda, the prosecution alleged, was bundled into a vehicle by her husband, whilst she was walking along an alley she used to park her own car. It is known on the day of her disappearance Linda walked along the alley, having left her car, and she walked towards Swindon town centre. It is known because a man heading in the same direction saw her. The man drove along the alley approximately seventy five seconds after spotting Linda. As he drove he neither witnessed nor heard anything of relevance. At the end of the alley, a driving instructor was waiting to pick up a learner driver. He too did not hear or see any abduction or anything suspicious. There are twelve houses overlooking the alley and no one within any of them reported anything unusual. No one has come forward to inform the police they heard shouting or any noise associated with someone being taken against their will. At the scene of the 'crime' there were no traces of blood, hair, or DNA of any sort, and there were no signs of a struggle. If Linda was abducted then she must have been a willing hostage. It could be argued Linda willingly entered the vehicle because she knew Razzell. However, the two had separated and were not on friendly terms. There is no way that Linda would have entered the car unless forced to do so.

On average approximately forty people walk or drive through the alley at around the time Linda was allegedly taken against her will. Would someone intent on abduction choose to commit his crime at a time at which he could so easily be observed? Whilst it is not impossible it is something that should be taken into account. Quite simply there is no evidence to corroborate the prosecution's assertion that abduction took place within the alley.

There was one trace of Linda in the alley in addition to her car; her mobile telephone was found beside some garages. It was claimed she dropped it during a struggle with her captor, but is this necessarily the case? It would seem unlikely when one studies the facts surrounding this phone. It was found under a piece of wood, which is unusual if it had been dropped. The police initially believed it had been planted at the scene, which is a valid belief. It is possible the wood was placed on top of the phone so that the police would find it when they searched for traces of Linda. If it had not been covered then anyone who happened to walk along the alley could quite easily have stolen it. Furthermore it would seem the phone was not even placed at the scene until shortly before its discovery on 20 March. The phone was switched on when it was found, but it was on silent, and it was known a number of people had attempted to call Linda. One telephone call was made to her phone at 22:17 on the day of her disappearance and this is a crucial call. It is crucial because experts determined when the call was made the telephone was not in the alley. This is known because a mobile telephone mast over one mile away picked up the call. All of the other calls had been picked up by two different masts, located nearby, and it was claimed in court that it was highly unlikely that a call would be picked up by a mast so far away when there were closer masts because, the expert alleged, the signal from that mast could not be detected from the alley. Was the phone planted after 22:17, following the 'abduction'? If so then who planted it? It is known at 22:17 Razzell was with friends in Hungerford and therefore has a cast iron alibi. He could not have had the phone in his possession at this time because it was in a location much closer to Swindon than Hungerford, which is located more than fifteen miles from Swindon. The phone was examined and DNA belonging to Linda's boyfriend was found on it.

Despite no evidence having been found to prove Linda was dead, Razzell was arrested in connection with his wife's abduction and murder on Wednesday 15 May 2002 and was taken to Westlea Police Station for questioning. He was charged the following day. On Friday 17 May he appeared at Swindon Magistrates Court and was remanded into custody awaiting trial.

A Turbulent Relationship
Glyn Razzell met Linda Davies in 1979. The couple married five years later but, due to Linda suffering from mental health problems that had plagued her since the late 1970s, the marriage was one of unhappiness. The trial jury were not told that Linda's problems seemed to be returning with her children recounting their mother as having become increasingly upset and spending time on her own. She was suffering from depression but was not taking her prescribed anti-depressants.

At the time of Linda's disappearance she and Razzell had four children, aged seven, eleven, thirteen and sixteen. The children all lived with their mother, rarely seeing their father. The couple had separated and were in the process of gaining a divorce. Relations between the couple were not amicable and so they rarely spoke to one another.

Linda Razzell had made numerous accusations against her husband, which resulted in charges being made against him, but in each case there was no evidence to prove Razzell's guilt. For example, less than one month before Linda's disappearance Razzell was acquitted of a false charge of unlawfully wounding her. It has been argued that Linda made false accusations to punish her husband. All of the accusations seemed to coincide with key dates in the divorce process and so it has been suggested the accusations were made so that Linda could gain more from the divorce. It should be noted that the divorce was to be completed shortly after her disappearance.

A few days before she disappeared Linda gained a court order to have her husband's bank account frozen because Razzell had stopped paying maintenance for his children due to him having been made redundant. As a consequence of this Razzell was advised, by his solicitor, to abandon his plan of going on a day trip to France so that he could appear in court to deal with the maintenance issue. Razzell was given this advice only on the day before Linda disappeared and so if he planned to kill his wife as a consequence he did not have very much time to plan his crime.

Aware of his financial problems as a result of his redundancy the prosecution claimed Razzell had motive to murder his wife because, by doing so, he would profit. Is this the case? In 2000 Linda changed her Will in favour of her children, leaving nothing to her husband. Similarly her life insurance policy would, upon her death, pay out to the children. It is known Razzell was aware he would not benefit. He also knew, due to his former employment as an insurance broker, that if Linda was killed and her body never found that he would have to wait seven years before he could sell the house. Therefore Razzell would only benefit after a number of years had elapsed.

Blood in the Car
Before discussing the bloodstains discussed at trial it is important to mention the circumstances in which led to Razzell having borrowed the vehicle in question, a silver Renault Laguna. It has been mentioned previously that Razzell was forced to abandon a trip to France because of Linda having frozen his bank account. Razzell owned a people carrier and because this was the largest vehicle owned by any of those participating in the trip it was agreed those travelling to France could borrow the people carrier because it meant more alcohol could be bought. As a result Razzell borrowed the Laguna in exchange for his own vehicle. He only took possession of the vehicle on the day before Linda's disappearance and it was returned to its owner on 20 March after having been examined by the police.

Spots of blood were found in the Laguna Razzell was driving on the day of Linda's disappearance. DNA tests confirmed the blood did belong to the missing woman. This, on first sight, suggests Razzell's guilt because otherwise how could his wife's blood find its way into the car he was driving on the day she was abducted? This evidence, however, is not without tremendous problems.

The blood was found in the boot and on a small section of the footwell mat of the passenger's seat. For blood to be in the front of the car and the boot it is conceivable that at the time when the blood was transferred onto the vehicle that either Linda herself was bleeding or items covered in her wet blood were placed in those locations. Either way, if responsible, Razzell would have had blood transferred onto his hands. Particularly as the prosecution argued the blood in the front was the result of a blood stained weapon or clothing being placed in the footwell. If Razzell's hands or clothing were covered in blood then why was no blood detected on the door handle, driver's seat, seatbelt, steering wheel and other locations one would expect to find blood if someone had just handled an item or items covered in blood and/or a body?

The greatest criticism of the integrity of this evidence is the manner in which the blood was found. The blood was only found on the third examination whilst applying a chemical agent known as Luminol. Luminol is a popular agent when testing for the presence of blood in dark areas. It is used in dark areas because when it is applied to areas where blood is present it becomes luminous. Testing did show the presence of Linda's DNA on the areas where the Luminol had positive results and therefore it is most likely that blood was present when the vehicle was examined on this occasion. The question is, why was it missed on the first two examinations and was only detected after the car interior had been washed to remove fingerprint powder? It was claimed the first two tests were not sophisticated enough to detect any blood. It is remarkable that the scientists would use two inferior tests when a third was available and despite the failure of the first two tests they would carry out a third examination when there was no evidence to prove blood was present.

It is also of great significance that it was told in court sections of blood were visible to the naked eye within the vehicle. If so then how did a team of scientists, using the naked eye and scientific techniques, miss the allegedly visible blood? How did the car's owner miss the blood whilst washing the vehicle? How did Razzell and his girlfriend not notice the blood? Razzell's girlfriend placed her bag on the footwell mat of the passenger seat and did not notice anything. Her bag was examined and no traces of blood were found upon it. Swabs were taken of the vehicle, as were tapings to find textile fibres, but no blood was found. If blood had been noticed on the footwell mat then surely Razzell would have destroyed the mat but if blood was there he could not have noticed what must have been highly visible if he was responsible for Linda's disappearance. Why was the clearly visible blood found only after the car was washed and after two examinations? How could so many people not notice it despite thorough examinations having been conducted? The second examination lasted five hours and involved two police scientists. How could two people thoroughly examine a car for five hours and not spot any blood, unless blood was not present?

A point of significance is that despite the alleged presence of blood dating from the time of Linda's abduction there are no other signs suggesting she was bundled into the car and her body disposed of using the car. For example none of her fingerprints were found on the interior or exterior of the vehicle. Furthermore none of her hairs, skin or textile fibres from her clothing were found in the vehicle. There was also no damage to the interior of the car. If she was forced into the car, as the prosecution believed, it is odd that she should not lose a single hair or leave microscopic traces of her skin. Even thorough cleaning would not remove all traces and yet the vehicle was first examined in the early hours of the day after Linda's disappearance. Razzell's movements for much of the time are accounted for, as will soon be shown, and so he did not have the opportunity to remove traces of his wife if she had been in the vehicle. It was then examined on the following day. When this is coupled with the lack of evidence from the scene relating to a struggle and the absence of witnesses commenting they observed anything suspicious, it must be questioned whether Linda was abducted.

Razzell's Movements on the Day of the Disappearance
In order to commit the crime in question Razzell would have needed to leave his home at around 08:20, so that he could travel to the abduction site and lie in wait. This was because Linda normally parked her car at around 08:50. In order to be at the location the prosecution allege must have been the scene of the crime, Razzell's supporters claim he would have had to travel a journey lasting at least fifteen minutes depending on traffic. The journey often lasts twenty minutes or more (the jury were not told that the journey can indeed take up to forty five minutes). Therefore in order for him to be almost certain he reached Linda in time he would have needed to leave his house at 08:20 at the very latest. Yet it is known he received a telephone call on his home telephone, from his girlfriend, at 08:24. The call lasted one minute and forty-three seconds, which does not leave a large window of opportunity for him to commit the crime when it is considered it would have taken him time to lock his door, get into the car and drive away. It should be noted that whilst Linda did leave her home later than usual on that day Razzell could not have known this. Razzell did not know Linda's daily routine because it altered each term and she was delayed at home unexpectedly. Even the location at which Linda worked altered from time to time.

Razzell had no contact with his wife or children and therefore did not have any way of being able to predict where his wife would be at a given time. It should also be noted that because Linda left home later than usual any abduction would have taken place after 09:10. Razzell's neighbour confirmed that the car Razzell had borrowed was on his drive at 09:30 and 11:00. As the Renault Laguna was seen on Razzell's drive at 09:30 this does not provide much time for him to carry out the abduction and drive the journey home, which almost certainly lasted around twenty minutes. And would Linda have been left alive in the boot of the car? It is unlikely and so she would have either been left somewhere temporarily or killed and her body left in the vehicle. Either possibility requires time, of which there was none available.

Razzell maintains that he went for a walk near his home, over five miles away from the scene of the 'crime', on the morning on which Linda went missing. Retracing his journey, on foot in the company of two police officers, he pointed out three CCTV cameras that would have captured footage of him if he had indeed walked the route he claimed to have done. By the time the police obtained the video from one of the cameras, it had been reused and so the footage from 19 March had been destroyed. The other two cameras, including one outside Westlea Police Station, were not working. Razzell could not possibly have known that the cameras were not recording. It was potentially dangerous for Razzell to claim he had walked past the cameras because, had they been working and he was not shown on the footage, his account could have been shown to be a fabrication. Therefore, if he did not walk that route, why did he claim he did so and take a huge gamble?

There were a number of individuals who could have potentially provided Razzell with an alibi by having provided corroborating evidence relating to his movements. There was a school trip at Lydiard Park, which Razzell maintains he walked to around the time of his wife's 'abduction'. These people were not contacted until three months later and so if anyone had seen Razzell, they could not recall doing so. Similarly a man was walking his dog in the area on that morning. It is likely that if Razzell was telling the truth about his movements this witness would have observed him. Unfortunately the witness was not questioned until one year later and could only recall seeing a man dressed like Razzell but he could not be sure of the date.

In order to reach the site at which the prosecution alleged Razzell abducted his wife, he would have had to pass by a number of CCTV cameras. The footage from over twenty cameras was studied. If he were responsible it would be expected the vehicle Razzell was driving would have been captured on the footage. It is therefore of significance that the footage did not show the Renault Laguna Razzell was using. No one has ever been able to say they saw a silver Renault Laguna in the area on the morning of 19 March 2002. Similarly no witnesses have ever been able to say that they saw Razzell, or any man matching his description, in and around the alley at which the prosecution claim the abduction took place.

The prosecution argued that Razzell had driven a total of sixty miles more than he usually did on the day of Linda's disappearance, in the Renault Laguna. They alleged the extra miles were indicative of him having travelled to an area to dispose of Linda's body. The additional travel is a point on which a lot rests because it is suggestive of guilt. An expert, however, concluded there had been no additional miles travelled. He based his assertion on a reconstruction of Razzell's car journeys and studies of the amount of fuel used. The owner of the car told he was only able to get twenty four miles to the gallon and, using this information along the knowledge of how much fuel had been added to the engine, the expert concluded Razzell had not driven any further than he normally did each day. If this is the case then where did he dispose of the body? It would have to be in a location in very close proximity to where he travelled during the course of his usual day, but these locations were all searched and nothing of significance was found. True, he could have disposed of the body using another vehicle but there is absolutely no evidence to show he had access to any other vehicle. Furthermore it was shown, as discussed above, that Linda's DNA was found in the Renault Laguna and therefore if Razzell disposed of the body it was almost certainly the case he did so with the Laguna.

It was argued Razzell switched off his mobile telephone that day so that his movements could not be traced. The signal from a mobile phone can be used to locate, with some accuracy, the mobile and therefore locate the person who has the phone in their possession. It was claimed Razzell never switched off his telephone and so it was out of character for him to do so on 19 March and was therefore a suspicious action. It was, however, demonstrated in court that the model of mobile phone used by Razzell often has a tendency to switch itself off because there is frequently a fault with the battery. Much of Razzell's movements during the day were, however, accounted for.

During the evening of 19 March Razzell picked up his girlfriend, Rachel Smith, from her place of work, in the Laguna, and they drove to a pub in Avebury, the journey lasting approximately twenty minutes. After having dinner Razzell drove Smith back to work so that she could collect her own car. Smith then drove to Razzell's house, and Razzell drove to meet his friends who were returning from France. However, after setting off Razzell received a voicemail message from his friends who told that they had been delayed on the ferry back to Britain and so rather than heading straight to the pub where they were due to meet Razzell first went to a service station where he bought a magazine. The CCTV footage and a receipt for the magazine confirmed this.

After meeting his friends Razzell returned to his home at around 23:30, as confirmed by Rachel Smith. She was with him when the police arrived approximately two hours later.

Murdered or Simply Missing?
If Glyn Razzell abducted and murdered his wife then he carried out a near perfect crime. It would be an incredible feat to kidnap someone, in broad daylight in an area where there are large numbers of people, without leaving any clues and without being observed. There is a lack of evidence suggesting Linda was abducted, with the only supposed proof of her death being the absence of a body and the presence of bloodstains in the vehicle driven by Razzell. On the other hand, in this most remarkable of cases there are a number of clues, many of which were not discussed at Razzell's trial, to suggest that Linda faked her abduction.

Although it does not prove she chose to disappear it is known Linda's demeanour was unusual on 19 March 2002. Each morning when leaving for work Linda would normally say to her children ìSee you at five.î However, on this particular Tuesday she simply said ìGoodbye.î She was also in a much happier mood, which was considered out of character when compared with her stressful manner. It is known that if she had arrived at work that day that she would have been at least fifteen minutes late because of her having helped look for her child's homework. However, it would seem possible Linda had no intention of going to work because she did not take her identification badge with her, or at least she forgot to take it with the hassle of searching for the homework. Linda owned two mobile telephones; one for ordinary usage and the other for times of emergency so that he children could contact her if they needed to. Normally she would keep both with her. However, on the day of her disappearance Linda did not take the emergency phone.

When Linda's youngest children were not collected from school they began to become worried. At 18:24, after having been told of the children still being at school, Linda's boyfriend contacted the police. Soon after returning home, upon being collected from school, the children began sending a series of text messages to Linda's mobile phone. One of the messages curiously read, 'All we want is for you to come home but if you feel you can't that's fine.' It is unusual for a daughter to tell her mother, within only hours of the mother having gone missing, that it is fine if she decides she does not want to return. Whilst people react differently in certain circumstances is it not more conceivable the daughter should be more concerned about her mother's whereabouts and safety than simply accepting she might not return? Did, perhaps, the children realise that their mother might want to disappear?

On 20 March 2002, the day after Linda's alleged abduction, a woman matching her description was seen driving through Highworth in a silver Ford Fiesta. Ordinarily the sighting could have been discounted, with the prosecution saying the witness was wrong. At trial the prosecution did claim the witness was mistaken in her belief she saw Linda. However, the witness had been a friend to Linda for a number of years and according to the witness Linda had looked straight at her and appeared, in the witnesses' opinion, to be annoyed that she had been sighted. Was the witness mistaken or did she see Linda at a time at which, if Razzell was a murderer, Linda was almost certainly dead or, at the very least, not driving around on her own. Since this sighting there have been a number of witnesses who have claimed to have seen Linda since her alleged death and even since Razzell was charged with the murder. Three separate sightings occurred in Weston-super-Mare. There were also two sightings of a woman who was possibly Linda, in Wales. Both sightings took place close to one another with one witness claiming to see Linda hitch a lift.

Why would Linda wish to disappear? It is known that Linda was having financial problems. She was behind with her mortgage payments, which must have been a cause of great stress, especially with her depression. The jury were informed of Linda's financial problems, but they were not told she was having problems at work. Her conduct with the students at college was viewed to be improper, with her being viewed confrontational, and she had to be spoke to by a senior member of staff.

19 March 2002 was seemingly intended to be a day of some importance to Linda. She had written a question mark on the calendar at the family home for this date. What did that question mark signify? Could it perhaps be a reminder of the date on which she was considering leaving? The jury were never informed of this curious mark.

It is known on the day preceding her disappearance Linda, accompanied by her boyfriend, visited three banks to withdraw money from her account. The jury at trial was not told about this. They were also not told that in the days before 19 March Linda used the Internet to search for cheap flights. Was Linda planning on leaving the country? If she was, did she succeed?

Where Is Linda Now?
Is Razzell guilty of a calculated murder with his victim's body still unaccounted for, or is he incarcerated for a crime that never took place whilst his alleged victim continues to live undetected? If, as would seem to be an option worth considering, Linda is alive, where could she be?

Linda speaks fluent French; a valuable ability for someone who wishes not to be found for it provides a large area where she could travel to and be able to speak in the native language without raising too much attention to herself. Although it is known Linda loved France, having spent a year living in Paris and therefore she has a good knowledge and good connections with the country, a number of other countries are French speaking.

Linda had connections with the French speaking country of Burundi, which is an African country. Linda knew a man who had carried out aid work in the country and whom she had helped to learn French. Furthermore a search of Linda's belongings revealed she had made a note of the address of the Official Residence of the Ambassador of Burundi. The jury at Razzell's trial was not told this. Nonetheless Razzell's campaign believe it is unlikely Linda is in, or was ever in, Burundi.

Linda also has connections with Wales, where her cousin lives. This is interesting when one considers the two possible sightings of Linda, after her 'death', in Wales.

It is considered most likely that if she is alive Linda is living in Paris, a city well known to her. However, with a population of several million it would be a difficult task for anyone to locate her if she has decided she does not want to be found.

With no trace of Linda's body having been found it is rather premature to accept she is dead, particularly when taking into account the weaknesses in the case against Glyn Razzell as discussed here. Of course, it is difficult to find a dead body if it has been carefully disposed of. On the other hand, it is even more difficult to find a living person who has chosen to disappear, particularly if the police have decided to give up all attempts of looking for her. The only real chance Razzell has of having his conviction overturned is to prove that Linda is alive. If she is alive today, then she will be forty-three years old. She is white, five foot tall, of slim build, with dark, curly, shoulder length hair. Linda has blue eyes and a small scar on the bridge of her nose. It is possible she would use her maiden name, Davies. Razzell's campaign are offering a reward for information which proves, to the satisfaction of the judges at the Court of Appeal, that Linda was alive after 19 March 2002.

If Linda is alive, or if there is a lurking doubt that Linda might not be dead, then quite simply Razzell's conviction would be unsafe and unsatisfactory and consequently it must be quashed.

Only one month after Razzell's conviction the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Angela Cannings, wrongly convicted of two murders that never occurred, that, '... if murder cannot be proved, the conviction cannot be safe. In a criminal case, it is simply not enough to be able to establish even a high probability of guilt.' In order to justify a murder conviction, in the absence of a body, it is necessary to prove that a) the victim is indeed dead and b) the defendant(s) murdered the said victim.

Is there enough evidence to prove Linda is dead and, even if there is, is there enough evidence to prove Razzell was responsible for causing her death?

Who Killed Jill Dando? The Case of Barry George - a serious miscarriage of justice. This is a 'must read' book according to a reviewer. Based on extensive studies and conversations with Barry George and those who know him Priced 9.99 (UK pounds) and $12.99 (USA). Available from any Amazon site.

For more information and reviews please visit: http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/New/Synopsis.asp?eBookID=413

TOP