Mabel Crandell

Mabel Crandell was murdered at her home at 30 Station Road.

A man was convicted of her murder in 1991 but his conviction was later quashed in 2003.

Mabel Crandell was found dead in her bungalow in Station Road, Herne Bay on Monday 1 September 1986 following a fire. Her body was found in the hall way with multiple facial and neck injuries, which were said to have been inflicted by stamping with a shod foot.

The man that was convicted of her murder was not arrested until 4 December 1989 after a couple that lived in Herne Bay told the police that the man had confessed to the murder to them the day before her body was found, adding that the man had threatened to harm them and their children if they told anyone.

However, at the appeal it was heard that Mabel Crandell was last seen on the Saturday afternoon, meaning that if the statement of the couple were correct, and that he had told them on the Sunday, that he would have had to have murdered her on the Saturday night. However, the pathologists evidence should that it was unlikely that she would have died on the Saturday night with evidence indicating that she died on the Sunday afternoon, after his alleged confession.

When the man was released, he said:

Mabel Crandell was last seen alive at about 3pm on the Saturday, 30 August 1986.

Her body was discovered shortly after 5.01am on Monday 1 September 1986 by fire officers. She was pronounced dead at 6.50am on Monday 1 September 1986. The fire at her property was discovered and reported to emergency services at about 4.45am on Monday 1 September 1986.

Her cause of death was given as multiple facial and neck injuries.

Her inquest concluded in February 1987. It was heard that Mabel Crandell had been stamped on her face and neck. The Coroner described the attack as:

It was heard that she died from multiple facial and neck injuries to the jaw, a broken nose, fractures to both cheekbones, severe bruising to her neck and haemorrhages in both eyes. The Coroner said that her injuries were consistent with someone stamping on her face whilst wearing shoes.

A fire investigations officer said that the fire had been started deliberately and that they suspected that a flammable liquid was used. He said that it had been lit in the back bedroom but that the door had been closed which had prevented the fire from spreading quickly, noting that it had only just begun to break into the other rooms when they arrived.  However, it was noted that the heat from the fire was so intense that it had melted the internal plastic porch door.

The police stated that they thought that the murderer or murderers had gone back to the bungalow a second time to try to cover up any forensic evidence they might have left.

The police noted that the attack appeared to have happened in the hall and that they was blood on the wall.

The police said that the murder could have happened in daylight and that her time of death could have been as early as midday on Sunday, nearly 18 hours before her body was discovered by firemen.

A verdict of unlawful killing was returned.

It was noted that prior to the completion of the inquest in January 1986 that the Coroner allowed Mabel Crandell's cremation to go ahead and issued a cremation certificate. The Coroner noted that he was issuing the cremation certificate with some misgivings, noting that if there had been a homicide charge that the defence could have asked for a further post mortem examination. He said:

A blood specimen taken from her indicated that no fumes containing carbon monoxide had been inhaled prior to her death.

It was determined that the fire was started as a result of the deliberate application of a naked flame to bedding at the head end of the bed in the back bedroom and the presence of petrol was confirmed forensically on items taken from the lounge, main bedroom, kitchen and back bedroom.

It was also noted that a whole chicken in an oval roasting dish was found on a unit in the kitchen and a carving fork was discovered lying on the hallway floor.

Later, on 7 December 1989, four undamaged jam jars, some with lids, were found in a drainage dyke adjoining the East Site Static caravan site at Reculver. The significance being that it was claimed that the man convicted had hidden rings that he had stolen from the house in them.

It was noted that around the time of the murder, the man that was convicted had lived at several locations, those being:

1. 16 January 1986: living alone at 24 St Mildred's Road, Ramsgate.
2. 4 June 1986, he notified the DHSS of a change of address to 12 Queen's Gardens, Herne Bay.
3. 8 September 1986, he notified the DHSS of a move to 23 Twonley Street, Ramsgate.

The man's first wife said that they first met in 1973 when they were employed at Lenham Chest Hospital at Harrietsham. She said that a good friendship then grew between them and they married in August 1975. However, she said that it wasn't a good marriage and thought that they were emotionally different people and wanted different things and that there came a time when she left him, in 1978, and that she thought she divorced him in July 1982 although she continued to see him once or twice a week after their divorce.

She said that she later met another man in 1985 and they set up home together at 25 Rowland Drive in Herne Bay, and he became her common law husband. She noted that her common law husband and ex-husband met from time to time, and that her ex-husband had been a drinker, something she thought started when he went to Germany, and which certainly became excessive when he returned from Germany, noting that she thought he went to Germany in 1979 and returned around 18 months later.

She said that after he returned he continued drinking and that after their divorce he met another woman, around March 1985 and they got a flat somewhere between the Down and seafront at Herne Bay and that she would see him once a week and used to offer him financial assistance from time to time as well as moral support. She said that she used to give him money if he was short of money, and something to eat.

She noted that when he used to come and visit her that he had quite often had had a drink, but not always.

She noted that his new partner left him sometime in the early part of 1986 and that she thought he went to live in Sittingbourne.

She noted that he was very fond of walking and that he would walk quite long distances and that she had known him to walk to Ramsgate from Herne Bay.

She said that she knew Station Road in Herne Bay and knew that in August 1986 a woman had been found killed at an address in Station Road. She said that her ex-husband mentioned that he didn't think that anybody lived at the address in station Road, noting that he referred to it as:

She said that he told her that he thought it was empty because the curtains were shut and there were no signs of anyone living there.

She said that there had been a public house in Station Road, The Heron, and that her ex-husband would go there.

She said that around August 1986 that her ex-husband had been living at Queens Gardens in Herne Bay and that at that time she worked at The Baysea View Nursing Home in Herne Bay as a night nurse whilst her common-law husband worked as a tyre and exhaust fitter at Superdrive in Whitstable.

She said that on Sunday 31 August 1986 that she finished work at 8am and went home by taxi, arriving at 8.20am, at which time her common-law-husband was at home along with a number of children.

She said that her ex-husband then came to her house and was invited into the kitchen. She said that he seemed very agitated and dishevelled and looked dirty and had blood on his hands. She said that he was quite agitated and was one minute sitting and the next pacing up and down. She noted that he asked about a car that was parked at the back of the house, asking who owned it, and that he asked them to close the curtains.

She said that he then told them that he had done a terrible thing and told them that the previous evening he had been drinking in The Heron public house and that he left with a two-pack of lager or beer and that he had gone to the bungalow in Station Road and had gone inside, getting in through a window at either the back or side, noting that it had been easy to get in. She said that he told her that he then looked around to see what there was in the drawers and things, noting that he had been very drunk and that he had been moving around the bungalow very clumsily as a result and wasn't particularly quiet because he thought it was uninhabited.

However, she said that he then told her that the next thing he knew was that there was an old lady shouting at him with a kitchen tool in her hand, and asking him what he wanted and telling him to get out.

The man's ex-wife noted that at the time he was telling her that, on the Sunday morning, that he had been sober.

She said that he then told her that he went to the old lady to quieten her down and stop her shouting, and so he hit her.

She said that he told her that when he looked at the old lady that he could see the face of a girl that he used to live with in Germany as well as the woman that he had recently been living with.

She said that he then demonstrated how he had hit her by holding her with his left hand and hitting her with his right in a downward movement, noting that by the way he demonstrated she assumed that the woman had been small.

She said that she suggested to him that he go back to see that the old lady was all right or anonymously call an ambulance, but that he told her there was no point as the old lady was dead, and that he was quite positive she was dead because there was a mess there and that he had concentrated on her head and that her head was caved in.

She said that he still remained very agitated at that point and that he told them that they were never to tell anybody, and that if they did that he would kill them.

She said that he then got up at that moment and walked to the far end of the kitchen where the knife drawer was and that her common-law-husband, who had been standing anyway, tried to quieten him down.

She said that she was frightened and very confused. She said that she half believed his story, but that half of her didn't want to. She noted that as far as the threat was concerned that she totally believed it, noting that he had told them that he would killed them if they told or if they went to the police.

She said that after she heard his story she had a good look at his clothing and saw that there were dark red stains on his work boots and up the front of his trousers. She said that he had also been wearing a check shirt and a lighter coloured jacket, but couldn't remember any staining on the jacket, mainly on the shoes and trousers.

She noted that there was also blood on his fingernails and on his hands.

She said that he told her that he had left the old lady in the hall by the door to the room where she discovered him and that she then asked him whether he was sure that she was dead and what she had been wearing, but that he had become agitated because he thought it was a silly question. She said that she was wondering about the old lady and whether she had been still up at the time or whether she had been in bed. She said that he then told her that she had been wearing a nightie and a cardigan. She said:

And that he replied:

She said that he was concerned because his fingerprints were everywhere, noting that as soon as he had realised what he had done that he had left the bungalow.

The man's ex-wife then went on to say:

She went on to say that had been very aggressive when he had come to visit whilst he had been drunk, and that before that incident he had been aggressive when drinking, but never to her personally. She said that sometimes when he came up when he had been drinking that he would want to fight her husband and that on one occasion he kicked the front door open and put his fist through the bottom of the stairwell.

She said that during the three days that he was there that she felt she couldn't relate to him anymore. She said there were more threats and that he said he would kill her husband if he ever told and that she believed the threats. She said that after the three days her husband took him to Ramsgate, but that the threats and the whole incident played on in her mind over the ensuing weeks and months.

She said that she saw him a few weeks later and that he told her that he had told a barmaid from a pub in Ramsgate, but told her that they could not tell anyone and that he had told her not to tell anyone, and that he insisted that she not tell anyone. She said that by that time that it was obvious that he had got away with it and that they were the only ones with that knowledge that could tell on him. However, she said that he just said that he would kill them if they told anyone.

She said that a few days after he told her about telling the barmaid that he told her that he hadn't after all and that she assumed that he had originally told her to see if they would make a move and that he was just testing them.

She said that she read something about the murder about a year later in the Herne Bay Gazette that said that a drug addict had confessed to the murder on his deathbed, but that she knew that it was untrue and made an anonymous call to the police station and told the person she spoke to who had killed Mabel Crandell, stating that she had met the person casually in a pub in Ramsgate and that he had told her.

She went on to say:

After the man's ex-wife and her husband came forward, the barmaid was also interviewed and gave similar evidence of the man's confessions.

She said that the man confessed to her one evening in October 1986 after they had both been drinking. She said that he had been upset and crying and told her that he had killed Mabel Crandell in Herne Bay. She said that she knew of the murder, but couldn't really take in what he was saying, stating that he told her something about pushing Mabel Crandell away and that she had fallen and something about him hitting her on the head. She said that after that she went out and called the Samaritans and later saw a friend after which she returned to the flat she was sharing with him. However, she said that at the time she didn't report the matter to the police because she wasn't sure whether to believe him or not.

However, after the witnesses came forward the man was arrested and soon after tried and convicted in 1991.

It was noted that their evidence formed the sole basis for the prosecution’s case.

When the lake was dredged, no petrol can was found. However, it was noted that the method used was not perfect and that it could not be ruled out that it was not there.

It was noted that although one of the calls made by the couple had been logged and they were told that their information would be passed on to senior case officers, it wasn't and the other two calls were not logged.

It was also heard that they had contacted a reporter at the Daily Star, hoping that they would make their own enquiries and tip off the police.

Although the man denied murdering Mabel Crandell, it was noted that he could think of no reason why the three people would say that he did.

Following his conviction, the police said:

His conviction was later quashed in June 2003 after it was heard the medical evidence that suggested that Mabel Crandell was murdered in the afternoon of Sunday 21 August 1986 was not disclosed to the jury, it being noted that the evidence of the couple that said he confessed to them stated that the murder took place on the Saturday, 30 August 1986. It was also heard that a confession from another man was also not disclosed to the jury on the grounds that it was hearsay. As such, on those grounds, the man’s appeal was allowed. He had served 12 years and later received compensation for his imprisonment, although it was thought that he died a few years later.

However, although it was noted that the basis of his acquittal was the uncertainty of the medical evidence and the time of death, it was heard that the matter was fully before the court and argued.

It was heard that the evidence indicated that when Mabel Crandell was found that rigor mortis was set in. However, the court heard that rigor mortis could in rare instances set in immediately and last for up to two weeks and that there were many variables and that it was not an exact science. However, it was accepted at the trial that in normal situations, rigor mortis was:

As such, it was noted that they would be looking at a time of death around late afternoon on Sunday 31 August to begin with but that thirty-six hours or so to the establishment of rigor mortis from the time of death was possible.

It was noted that Mabel Crandell was seen by the ambulance men at 5.09am on Monday 1 September 1986 who recorded that her body was cold and stiff, indicating a possible time of death, using the 36 hour estimate as being 5pm on the Saturday, 30 August 1986.

However, it was heard that if the confessions were to be accepted, then the murder must have happened between 11pm and midnight on the Saturday evening. Further, it was stated that if it could be shown that that part of their evidence was false, then it could cast doubt on the entire evidence of the confessions.

It was further noted that her body was seen at 6.50am on Monday 1 September 1986 by a doctor and then again by the pathologist at 2.30pm on Monday 1 September 1986, who at 3pm described rigor mortis as fully established, which would push forward the extent of her possible death to 3am on the Sunday morning, 31 August 1986. However, it was noted that there was no evidence to state what degree of refrigeration her body had been kept in after arriving at the mortuary and it being examined.

It was also noted that as there were no known suspects at the time, that there was no post mortem carried out for the defence.

What was noted was that the pathologist merely recorded that:

However, his evidence contained no further indication of possible time of death.

However, the appeal stated that it didn't seem likely that there was no further communication between the prosecution and the defence about the pathologists findings and whether he might be able to express a view about the timing of the death, and that other evidence strongly suggested that there was. However, such evidence was not available becuse the transcript of the doctor's evidence to the jury was no longer available and his evidence had to be pieced together from the judges summing up and the notebooks of the junior counsel for the prosecution.

In the junior counsel for the prosecution's notes it was found that there was a distinct heading title:

As such, it was considered that it was clear that the prosecution lead was going to ask the pathologist to deal specifically with the relationship between his observation and the likely time of death, with it being further inconceivable that the defence would have permitted that evidence to be given unless they had had prior notice, to which they were entitled, of what the doctor would say. It was then assumed, at the appeal, that what happened was that since there was no statement from the witness dealing with that aspect of the matter, that it seemed probable that there had been a communication between counsel, and they had understood what the pathologist was likely to say, and that it was more likely to assist the man being tried, rather than disadvantage him, and that under such circumstances, it was at once understood why it was thought unnecessary to obtain a further statement from the pathologist on his thoughts on the time of death.

It was further noted that the judges summing up also shed light on the matter, covering material facts as to the dress of Mabel Crandell and it appearing that she had been preparing a chicken at the time of her murder, indicating that it was more likely to have been during the afternoon than late at night as suggested in the confessions.  To that end, the appeal quoted the judges summing up relating to those points:

As such, it was heard that the appeal on that matter rested on the grounds of two points, first, that documentation showing precisely what the pathologist could say about the time of death was not disclosed to the defence and, second, that there was further evidence available from the pathologist, and to a limited extent from another pathologist, that cast doubt upon the safety of the conviction.

It was further added that other documented evidence supported the findings, the first being that of a recorded conversation between the pathologist and a detective which stated:

It was heard that that document, which was available to the police, was never presented to the defence and that it might have assisted the defence and effected the decision of the jury, it being noted that it was wholly inconsistent with the alleged confession.

However, it was noted that it was still not certain whether both lines were the opinion of the pathologist, it being noted that the first line was consistent with what he said in court, whilst the second more significant line might have been inferred by the detective.

It was further noted that when the pathologist was questioned at the appeal that he doubted that he would have given any absolute time limit, as the document had been thought to suggest, because he would always qualify what he said by the imprecision of the estimating process and said that he thought that it was more likely that that the second passage was the thoughts of the officer consequent upon their conversation rather than what he had said and it was considered that there was no doubt that that was the case.

It was further noted that the note formed evidence of another departure from what the pathologist told the jury, and that was that in his evidence to the jury he put the most likely period between death and his examination as 12 to 24 hours. However, the message suggested that was 'more likely' to be 18 to 24 hours rather than 12 to 18 hours. At the appeal the pathologist said that he could not explain why he had thought the longer period was more likely, if indeed he was accurately recorded. However, it was noted that that information would not have assisted the defence, as from their standpoint, a 12 to 24 hour period was, if anything, better than the shorter period, and certainly no worse.

The other material document found was a police internal request, date stamped 26 November 1986, which included the passage:

At the appeal the pathologist reiterated that determining time of death was not an exact science and reiterated that in general rigor mortis would be set within 12 hours, remain fully established between 12 and 24 hours, and wear off after 36 hours.

However, when he was asked directly at the appeal whether in his professional judgment death could have occurred 39 to 40 hours before his examination, taking into account all the various factors as they were known, he replied:

Further in reference to the judges summing up regarding his statements that it was perfectly possible that her death might have occurred between 11-12pm on the Saturday, he said that he could not really agree with the assessment attributed to him, adding that whilst it was possible, it was extremely unlikely.

As such, it was heard at the appeal, that if the jury had heard the evidence from the pathologist as to his opinion as he did at the appeal, that it might have had an impact on the verdict of the jury.

However, the prosecution at the appeal noted that there was no radical difference between what was said at the appeal, and what was said to the jury, and that the issue was properly left to the jury, who rejected it.

The prosecution further noted that there was never any cogent reason suggested as to why the witnesses should have effectively conspired against the man to have him convicted of a murder of which he was wholly innocent. They further pointed out that there was no evidence of any collusion between the couple on the one hand and the barmaid on the other. They added that in that regard, the fact that the barmaid was only seen following the arrest of the man and that the couple could not tell the police how to trace her. The prosecution further noted that the lack of any detail in the barmaid's account was also inconsistent with a story collectively invented by the them.

The prosecution further noted that the couple also stated information that could only have been known by the murderer, particularly, that Mabel Crandell was wearing a nightdress and cardigan and that the couple remembered a reference to blue which she thought referred to the nightdress. It was then noted that Mabel Crandell had been unusually attired when she died, with the pathologist recording her as wearing:

It was noted that whilst he didn't mention a nightdress, that examination of the crime scene photos clearly revealed that one of her many layers of clothing was a nightdress. It was noted that the nightdress itself was not blue, but in all probability a pale pink with what appeared to be a small floral pattern repeated at intervals across the material, but that one of the cardigans was blue, although that was not a top layer, which was the housecoat, which was brown in colour.

However, the appeal argued that it would be difficult to imagine that a person would describe her clothing as being a blue nightdress with a cardigan over it if that person had seen her standing before she was attacked and then lying on the ground as depicted in the photographs, although it was added that it could not be said that the confession was not false on that matter, it being further noted that if the man, if he had been the killer, had been drunk, as he might not have been able to clearly recollect what she was wearing, and even if he were to, that there was no certainty  that the couple were completely accurate in their recollection some years after the conversation.

However, it was added that the appeal was quite sure that any jury would be unimpressed by the suggestion that the description allegedly given of the clothing could provide reassurance for doubts that they might otherwise entertain.

After hearing the evidence at the appeal, the judges said:

Although the man spent 12 years in prison, having been convicted, he was not convicted until February 1991, over four years after the murder and he was not initially considered a suspect, and as such, accepting the ruling of the appeal, the question is who killed Mabel Crandell?

It was initially thought she had been murdered by burglars that had then set fire to her bungalow to cover their tracks. The fire was reported by a passerby at 5am on 1 September 1986.

It was thought that the fire started in the back bedroom. Mabel Crandell was found dead in the hallway near her front door. It was noted that she normally slept in the front bedroom.

The reference to the man that had confessed to the murder was to a former Yorkletts roofing contractor who was said to have boasted about the murder shortly before he died from a drink and drugs overdose in August 1987.

It was noted that Mabel Crandell had been a recluse and had not drawn her curtains or opened her windows for more than 14 years. Her husband had died ten years earlier.

When the police searched her property they found £9,000 in a secret compartment in a cabinet that was made by her husband, which it was said was evidence that she was reluctant to trust her money to a bank or building society.

It was initially reported that the police were seeking some youths that had been seen acting suspiciously in a garden at Cobblers Bridge Road in Herne Bay at 1.30am and who had been disturbed and ran off.

They were described as:

Youth A

• Aged 17 or 18.
• About 5ft 6in tall.
• Blondish hair.
• Carrying a red and white rucksack with handles over the shoulders.

Youth B

• Aged 17 or 18.
• About 5ft 6in tall.
• Blackish hair.
• Wearing a green zip-up bomber type jacket.

Two youths fitting their descriptions were later seen at about 4.45am throwing things out of a container into a field near Eddington roundabout.

It was noted that Mabel Crandell was known to have been security conscious and would have refused to allow callers into her home at any time. Her neighbour described her as:

The police appealed for anyone in Station Road that had had unexpected callers to come forward.

It was noted that a gallon oil can containing petrol was also stolen from the garden shed of a nearby house.

The police also appealed for information about a van that was seen outside her house shortly before her murder. The van was seen outside her home at about 11am on Friday 29 August 1986 and then again at about 3pm on Saturday 30 August 1986. On the second occasion Mabel Crandell was seen talking to the driver.

The van was described as a J4 or Transit type van coloured chocolate brown and in a tatty condition. It had a ladder rack on top and lettering on the side or doors.

The van driver was described as:

• White.
• Aged 25 to 30.
• Average build.
• Dark wavy hair with light coloured streaks.
• Wearing an olive green army-style jacket with epaulettes on the shoulders.
• Gipsey looking

The police said that they thought that the man might have been a casual builder who was looking for work. A photofit of the driver was released and the police were asking for people to come forward that could connect the man with the van.

During their investigation, posters were set up round the town and a four-minute video was made appealing for information which was shown in big stores and in television rental showrooms.

In November 1986 there was a Crimewatch appeal for her murder. It was said that the five minute television slot on the murder brought about a flood of calls and provoked exhaustive inquiries.  However, it was noted that the police were not revealing whether they had any definite new leads.

Following the acquittal of the man in 2003 there were no known developments in the case.