Glyn Razzelll

Only one month after Razzell's conviction the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Angela Cannings, 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.' It is always difficult to prove murder has taken place when no remains of the alleged murder victim have been recovered. Of course, there are a number of instances in which an individual has rightly been convicted despite the absence of a body (e.g. the case of Muriel McKay). However, in such cases it is necessary to prove that a) the victim is indeed dead and b) the defendant(s) murdered the said victim. Can these two criteria be satisfied in the case of Glyn Razzell?

In my mind the answer is most definitely ‘no’. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Linda was killed by anyone let alone her husband. Indeed a number of witnesses (one of whom had been a friend of Linda’s and so was unlikely to be incorrect regarding her identification) have claimed to see the ‘dead’ woman following her alleged abduction and death.

Razzell allegedly bundled his estranged wife into a car, in broad daylight, close to Swindon town centre, without anyone hearing screams, seeing a struggle and without leaving any evidence of a struggle. Linda, it has been shown, would never have voluntarily have gone anywhere with Razzell and yet there is not a single bit of evidence suggesting she was taken against her will.

Strangely Linda had placed a question mark on her calendar for the day she disappeared. What did this question mark represent? She is known to have withdrawn a large amount of money from her bank account (visiting three banks to make withdrawals) on the day before her ‘murder’ and she searched the Internet looking for cheap flights abroad. Linda has connections with France, and in particular Paris where she had lived for a year. She speaks fluent French. Linda was having financial problems at the time of her ‘death’. She was also having difficulties at work. Linda had a history of psychological problems, including depression and so she may have suffered a nervous breakdown. Was she murdered, and her body never discovered, or is the reason her body has never been found simply that she is still alive?

The only evidence suggesting she was murdered, and that Razzell was responsible, was some DNA found in the front of a car he had borrowed on the day of the ‘crime’. It is curious that it took three thorough forensic examinations to reveal what was described in court as a large quantity of blood visible to the naked eye. Even when chemical agents were applied experts failed to find a single spot of blood. Similarly the owner of the car, when cleaning the vehicle, failed to see any traces of blood. Have the experts made a mistake? Or, could the more sinister solution to this enigma be that the DNA was planted? No doubt the sceptics who view this page will not believe evidence was planted but believe me it does happen. Whether it happened in this instance is open to debate.

Accusations had, in the past, been made against Razzell by his wife. These were accusations of Razzell having assaulted Linda. However, in court, they were found to be without foundation. Razzell’s supporters claim that in each case Linda deliberately made false accusations in an attempt to persuade the courts to give her sole custody over the children (the couple had separated and divorce proceedings had begun). It is true that the accusations coincided with key court dates and, interestingly, Linda’s disappearance took place just before the divorce was to be finalised. Of course, if she had disappeared she would be unable to have custody over the children but the logic of a person who has had a nervous breakdown, if indeed Linda had a breakdown, is difficult to comprehend.

On the day of Linda’s ‘abduction’ Razzell was at home at 08:24 when he received a call from his girlfriend. Linda parked her car, at the site near to where she was ‘abducted’ normally at 08:50. Given the rush hour traffic it would be near impossible for Razzell to have travelled to the scene of the ‘crime’ before this time and if he wanted to ensure he got there in time he would obviously want to arrive early so as not to miss Linda. Studies of CCTV footage did not show the car he was driving, on any of the roads leading to Swindon town centre and he did not have access to any other vehicles. Neighbours were able to confirm the vehicle Razzell was driving was definitely on his drive at 09:30 and 11:00. Could Razzell have kidnapped his wife in the short time available, without leaving any trace and allowing witnesses to believe they had seen Linda alive and well when, according to the police and trial prosecution, she was dead?

Is Linda the victim of a murder, and her remains in an unknown location, or did she simply choose to disappear? Unfortunately the police never carried out an extensive search and they did not bother to check with Immigration in Britain or France to see whether she might have left the country.

So, can it be said, without doubt, that Linda is dead and can it be said, beyond all doubt, Razzell ended her life? If both of these questions cannot be answered with a ‘yes’ response, then Razzell must be released.

Source: The Official Website of S. C. Lomax