Following the initial investigation by the West Mercia Police, there have been over a dozen reviews of this extraordinary case. Reviewers include Robert Green, (1) Tam Dalyell MP, (2) Graham Smith,(3) World in Action,(4) BBC Crimewatch,(5) John Osborne,(6) Amanda Mitchison, (7) Bob Parker (8); and more recently, David Cole and Peter Acland, (9) Nick Davies,(10) Gary Murray (11), Robin Ramsay (12), John Stalker(13), Judith Cook, updating and revising her earlier investigation,(14) and the renewed look at the evidence by West Mercia Police in 1993-94.
All of these studies regard motive as the central issue of this affair, and only three motives are worthy of serious examination. The official police view, supported by ex-police officer Stalker and Nick Davies, is that a burglar was disturbed by Hilda, and that as a consequence of tackling her intruder, she was abducted from her home, stabbed and left to die of hyperthermia.
Good old conspiracy theory
The other studies opt for one of two ‘conspiracy theories’. The first links the Murrell death to the Falklands War, and in particular the Belgrano affair. The other links her death to her anti-nuclear activities in the early 1980s. Both schools of thought have produced circumstantial evidence which suggests the involvement of intelligence and security services. This involvement is likely to have been at least one remove, through the use of private security firms, or other more secretive organisations, so that in the event of discovery ‘plausible deniability’ could be maintained.
A rather special burglar
Unanswered questions litter the affair. Why didn’t this ‘thief’ just escape after rendering her unconscious? Why carry her off, propping up her unconscious body, with her recognisable hat in place, in the passenger seat of her car? Why then drive in a fast and erratic manner through the centre of Shrewsbury, even past the police HQ? Instead of drawing attention to himself in such a odd manner – there were 69 recorded sightings! – why didn’t this ‘local thief’ take the obvious, quick getaway route which would have brought him into open country-side just one mile from her home?
Who disconnected her telephone, and why? A neighbour, who claims that the Murrell junction box had been skilfully tampered with, was later shown photographs by police officers of the wires crudely torn out. And crucially, just where was Hilda for the three days before the discovery of her body nearly six miles from her home? And is it really believable that a police officer could spend two hours in the Murrell house without checking whether she was at home or not?
Investigation first, murder second!
Why was a professional counsellor of people with sexual problems visited by Shrewsbury Police at 6.30 p.m. on Friday, 23 March 1984, and asked if he could think of anyone who might have a sexual hang-up about elderly women. Rather nonplused at the time, and wondering what it was all about, he later said, ‘I realised when I read the first reports in the paper the next evening of the finding of Hilda Murrell’s body that it seemed the police had been describing the murder, but I’m at a loss to understand why they came to see me on the Friday night when she wasn’t found until the Saturday.'(15)
These and many more unanswered questions have led most reviewers to reject the burglar thesis. Even one of the investigating officers, Det. Sgt Mayne, admits that this case ‘doesn’t follow the accepted pattern of burglaries’.(16) But if it was not a bungled theft, by an admittedly very special burglar, what was the intruder’s motive?
MI5, Zeus and nuclear protest
Some writers believe that it was the determination of the Thatcher government to push through a highly ambitious nuclear power programme which set the context for this murder. We know from Cathy Massiter (17) that the MoD and Home Office were using MI5 to monitor anti-nuclear war protesters, and from Gareth Parry (18) that an American company, thought to be pressurised water reactor (PWR) specialists Westinghouse, was using a private detective agency to investigate objectors appearing at the Sizewell B inquiry.
This agency was later revealed to be Zeus Securities, the brainchild of Peter Hamilton, a man with formidable establishment credentials and a long background in MI6. Zeus, then operated by ex-MI5 officer, Jeremy Wetherall, of another security firm, Lynx, was given the contract to organise the surveillance, which they sub-contracted to Sapphire Investigation Bureau, run by Barrie Peachman. The story of Peachman, his use of the unsavoury far rightist, Vic Norris, who claims to have set up dummy peace groups, and Peachman’s suicide three weeks after the Murrell murder, is well documented.(19)
‘The nuclear bruderbond’
Why would key elements in the nuclear military-industrial complex engage in such surveillance activity? It should be remembered that in 1983-84 there was the strong possibility of a new PWR programme in the UK, and the financial and political benefits to the Thatcherites and their US allies are easy to understand. It is certainly feasible that a PM, having just won a second election, making plans for a probable confrontation with the NUM and the mining communities, and apparently fascinated with intelligence matters, (20) might have given the more shadowy sectors of the intelligence world greater licence
The fact that Hilda was actively associating with anti-nuclear groups such as END, ECOROPA and MCANW, consulting with expert scientists, such as Dr Don Arnott, as well as preparing a paper for Sizewell, may well have led to the sanctioning of a ‘fishing’ expedition. Arnott told Hilda of research indicating a serious weakness in the design of the control rods in PWRs in America just before his first heart attack at a London anti-nuclear conference. With Arnott unable to attend the Sizewell inquiry, it is possible that what she called the ‘nuclear bruderbond’, may have become alarmed – unnecessarily as it happened – that Hilda had been briefed to make public Arnott’s findings.
Falklands war secrets
The second ‘conspiracy theory’ centres on the sensitivities and secrets surrounding the Falklands War, including the sinking of the General Belgrano. A key player in that episode was Hilda Murrell’s nephew, Commander Robert Green, who was Staff Officer (Intelligence) to Sir John Fieldhouse, the Commander-in-Chief at the Northwood HQ. According to Tam Dalyell’s sources, Green was the officer who actually sent the signal to the submarine Conqueror ordering the Belgrano sinking, as well as passing the signals from HMS Endurance to Northwood HQ which clearly indicated that the invasion of the islands by Argentine forces was imminent. (21) Green, therefore, would have been one of very few people who were in a position to contradict Mrs Thatcher’s claim that the war was ‘a bolt out the blue’. Furthermore, Green’s known reservations about certain aspects of the war and his decision to leave the Navy shortly afterwards, may have caused a certain amount of consternation in naval intelligence.
The ‘Crown Jewels’
Even after the 1983 War Election, the story just wouldn’t go away. New information and rumours continued to circulate. There was the case of the missing Conqueror log; concerns about Lt. Sethia who served on Conqueror; the special inquiry in December 1983 set up by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, to investigate leaks; the issue of the security of GCHQ which led to the banning of unions in January 1984; and the Ponting document which became known as ‘the Crown Jewels’. This culminated in ‘a tremendous flap in Downing Street’ on 19 March 1984, according to a Dalyell source. Mrs Thatcher was apparently furious that Armstrong’s inquiry had drawn a blank, especially as it was now obvious that Dalyell had been sent raw signals material. Known to attend meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Cabinet Office Defence Committee, which deals with highly sensitive domestic intelligence, 22 it is conceivable that the PM demanded action to find ‘the enemy within’ naval intelligence. According to this theory, a ‘fishing’ team were, within days, on their way to Shrewsbury with deadly consequences.
Our rather special burglar again
On 20 December 1984, Dalyell stated in the Commons that, according to ‘a reliable source’, Hilda’s intruders had been looking for naval intelligence documents which may have been passed to her by her nephew, Robert Green. That very evening, the flat of Lt-Commander Peter Hurst, the only other officer to have left naval intelligence HQ since the war, and a close working colleague of Green’s, was broken into. This rather special burglar rifled through his papers, but left his valuables untouched.
A month later, at 8.30 a.m. on 26 January 1985, there was a major fire at Hilda’s now empty, small bungalow at Llanymynech, near Oswestry. The fire at ‘The Shack’ was immediately treated as arson by the police who sealed off the building, and, unusually, brought in Home Office forensic scientists. The night before the fire, Harlech TV had screened a documentary on the Murrell case. As no claims were made by any Welsh nationalists, and no one was ever arrested, we might conclude that the fire was the work of a rather special arsonist.
Two friends not interviewed
Gary Murray’s recent study has opened up a new line of inquiry and forced the police to a further eight months on this case. (23) In 1983-84, a young woman called Catriona Guthrie was so friendly with Hilda that she regarded her as her aunt. At that time, Guthrie lived near Hilda with a boyfriend, who is just referred to as ‘Malcolm’ or ‘LM’. The three of them were good friends, went on holiday together, attended meetings of the Shrewsbury Peace Group, and frequently discussed Hilda’s work.
In an affidavit, (24) prepared at the request of Murray, Guthrie writes that she finds ‘it most strange that after eight years my boyfriend and I have been totally overlooked, despite assurances from the authorities that investigators have exhausted their efforts in a nationwide search.’ She could have added that it is quite astonishing that the West Mercia force could research 3,600 potential suspects, but not get around to interviewing two of Hilda’s closest friends and companions, even though friends of Hilda and Guthrie told the police about this couple.
GCHQ connection
The boyfriend, ‘Malcolm’, is the son of a senior Signals Intelligence Officer (SIO) employed by the MoD, where his work involved handling intelligence traffic between GCHQ and the Falklands. Indeed, it was through this friendship that Hilda became interested in the Belgrano/ GCHQ inquiry. As all SIOs are regularly positively vetted, it is hard to conceive that military intelligence would be unaware of the relationship of the son of an SIO with an active campaigner against nuclear power and nuclear weapons, whose nephew was the personal security adviser to the British C-in C.
Neither Murray nor Cook explored the background of Hilda’s friend with the GCHQ connection. When did he form a relationship with Guthrie? How long did it last after the murder? How did ‘Malcolm’s’ SIO father, and GCHQ itself, view his son’s anti-nuclear campaigning? It is difficult to understand why this interesting angle remains unexplored.
Prison whispers
The main purpose of Guthrie’s affidavit is to relate a prison whisper about this case. Her affair with ‘Malcolm’ over, she moved to Lincoln and, in her spare time, became a prison visitor. While visiting, she learned from an inmate that one of his former cell mates had admitted being a member of a group who had entered Hilda’s house. This prisoner claimed that this ‘team’ had been ordered to search for naval intelligence papers, and that the leader reported to the Cabinet Office through an MI5 Liaison Officer. This story is just detailed enough for the ‘team’ members to be identified.
With all this known, and with no apparent legal constraints, it is strange that Murray chose not to name names. (25) It is also disturbing that the Guthrie affidavit and the Murray commentary are exceedingly confusing on the vital question of the source of this story (see below). This confusion badly damages the credibility of another ‘team’ member, who not only completely denies any involvement in this affair, but claims to be innocent of his crimes. (26)
Not in his book, but in a promotional interview for it, (27) Murray informs us that he knows who the killer is and that ‘he’s about five minutes from where we’re sitting now’ (Marble Arch). In another interview, (28) he tells us that ‘the person in charge of the attack was a ‘former MI5 agent who has left the service to run a private detection agency.’ Murray has sent key names to the West Mercia force, but to no avail. (29)
‘George’, friend of the Nagas
Much of the new material in Murray and Cook hangs upon the reliability or otherwise of Guthrie’s unnamed prison contact. But all we are told about ‘George’ is that he is interested in the Naga people of the Himalayas. Both writers should have informed us of this key player’s long record of drugs offences, and his reputation as a ‘grass’ after making deals with both Police and Customs. Nevertheless, ‘George’ tells an interesting tale. While some members of this ‘team’ are highly unlikely choices for such a risky enterprise, it is just possible that one or two could have been involved, the most likely candidates being David Gricewith and one of his associates. As Gricewith is dead, having allegedly accidentally shot himself while being arrested as a suspected armed robber, and his associate – ‘George’s’ source (30) – is serving a lengthy sentence for armed robbery, and is presently committed to a secure unit of a special mental hospital, confirmation is a touch difficult.
Enter ‘the Mechanic’
Dubbed ‘the Mechanic’ by the police, Gricewith is assumed to be, and probably is, the killer of Sgt. John Speed in Leeds on 31 October, 1984. But, just as with Hilda Murrell, there remain some serious questions over both the motive for, and manner of, Speed’s death. (31) The mystery deepens if the rather bizarre sequence of events which led to Gricewith’s death are carefully studied. In Part IV of her book, Cook offers us a seriously flawed description and analysis of these matters, making a number of factual errors in both the Speed murder and the death of Gricewith. Furthermore, it is not good enough to repeats rumours that Gricewith engaged in undercover work with the intelligence services and private security agencies, agent provocateur activities, or right wing politics, without producing the evidence. (32) In fact, a research project started four years ago, long before Guthrie signed her affidavit and Murray and Cook began their follow up studies, has already make significant progress with just these concerns. (33)
Evidence of Mrs Thatcher’s involvement with intelligence matters in the early 1980s, along with the growth of private security agencies activity in the same period, continues to sustain and encourage researchers of the Murrell affair who have long suspected a conspiracy. With the single burglar thesis firmly rejected by most reviewers, the balance of evidence available today suggests that Hilda’s attackers were likely to have been searching for naval intelligence documents. Indeed, ten years on, Robert Green has finally accepted that this was the most likely motive. (34)
Notes
- His most recent article is ‘Who killed Hilda Murrell and why?’, The New Reporter (32 New End Square, London NW3 1LS) Mar/Apr, 1994.
- His One Man’s Falklands (Woolf, London, 1982), is invaluable on the war.
- Death of a Rose grower (Woolf, London, 1985).
- Shown on 4 March, 1985.
- Shown on 14 March, 1985.
- HTV journalist with a long interest in this case.
- ‘In the Grip of a Murder’, The Independent Magazine, 18 November, 1989.
- Journalist with ITN with an on-going interest in this case. Works closely with Judith Cook.
- Cole was the Chief Supt. in charge of this murder enquiry, and Acland was the forensic pathologist employed by the police. They have recently produced a book, The Detective and the Doctor: A Murder Casebook, (Robert Hale, 1994), which must be a strong candidate for the worst written book of the year. This was the team which not only failed to find Hilda’s killer, but succeeded in stitching up Eddie Browning for the Marie Wilkes murder. The Foreword was penned by no less a person than Sir Thomas Hetherington, Director of Public Prosecutions, 1977-87.
- After producing some excellent investigative work in 1984-86, see e.g. the Observer, 27 January 1985, 3 February 1985, (both with help of Gary Murray) and 30 March, 1986, Davies has recently returned to this subject. In ‘Death in the time of conspiracies’, Guardian, 21 March 1994, he launches a savage attack on all conspiracy theorists. Useful rejoinders have already appeared: Cook, Guardian letters, 23 March 1994, and Robin Ramsay (see Note 12.).
- Two lengthy chapters in Enemies of the State (Simon & Schuster, London, 1993)
- Ramsay in ‘The murder of Hilda Murrell’, Lobster 27, June 1994, rejects Davies’s present view that this was an ‘apparently straightforward crime.’ In an otherwise excellent analysis of the evidence supporting the Sizewell theory, Ramsay gives little attention to the Falklands/Belgrano theory.
- Central TV invited Stalker to investigate this affair as part of the new Network First series, shown on 1 November 1994. Making a routine check of equipment, Stalker found that the ‘wrong thermometer’ had been used on the body thereby rendering the original estimation of time of death inaccurate. Making no criticism of his ex-colleagues for making such an error, he presented this discovery as a significant break-through. But even if Hilda did spend her last 24 hours crawling in the fields, it does not explain where she was for the other two days and nights.
- Cook has produced the best consistent work over the decade. She has recently followed her influential early book, Who Killed Hilda Murrell?, (New English Library, London, 1985), with a most readable and generally well-argued follow-up study, Unlawful Killing, (Bloomsbury, London, 1994).
- Cook pp. 19/20.
- Sunday Times 6 January, 1985.
- Guardian 3 June, 1985.
- Guardian 28, January 1985
- See, for example, index references in Murray.
- Robin Robison, a Cabinet Office official (1985-90) told John Pilger that Mrs Thatcher was the only PM regularly to read intelligence intercepts and to attend JIC meetings. See ‘Death for sale’, Guardian Weekend, 12 November, 1994. Robinson interview with Seumas Milne in The Enemy Within, (Verso, London, 1994), p. 282. Brian Crozier in his Free Agent, (HarperCollins, London, 1993), claims that Mrs Thatcher was regularly briefed by a secret advisory intelligence committee called ‘Shield’.
- To my knowledge, Green has remained silent on these questions, as we should expect of an ex-military intelligence officer.
- See note 20.
- Chief Insp. Herbert led this renewed investigation which concluded, again, that she was killed by a burglar.
- Reproduced in full in Murray pp. 199/203.
- A year later, Cook does name names in her book.
- Oddly enough, one of Murray’s clients was ex-Commander Green, (private letter from an informed source) who became one of the most active early advocates of the anti-nuclear conspiracy theory, even though it was, at that time, only based on ‘a gut feeling’ of his. See note 1.
- Outlook, July/August, 1993.
- Staines and Egham News, 12 August 1993.
- Cook p. 144.
- Private letter from an informed source and interview with a key player.
- Eye witness, PC Raj, described the murder as an SAS-style execution.
- ‘True Lies’, Guardian, 17 September 1994.
- The author would welcome any info and/or ideas.
- Interviewed by Stalker, see note 13.
Peter Smith teaches International Politics at the University of Teesside.