Advertisement

In 2002 did you see two blokes nicking a body ballasting hunk of concrete?

By 26 March 2012 18

ute

ACT Policing is seeking assistance in identifying the men that may be able to assist police in solving the murder of Kathryn Grosvenor in March 2002.

In late February or early March 2002 a witness was driving towards the roundabout at the intersection of Mirrabei Drive, Gundaroo Drive and Anthony Rolfe Avenue Gungahlin where they saw two men about to load a block of concrete kerbing from the roadside and into the rear of a black ute.

A second red vehicle was parked on the median strip at the time.

The ute is described as black with two doors and was in very good condition, it could have been new or possibly a few years old. The ute had no cover over the tray. The tray had fixed sides which were part of the vehicle itself.

The witness believes it could have been a Ford or a Holden.

The second car is described as red and similar to an early 1980s model Toyota Corolla sedan.

Detective Senior Constable Sarah Casey said the movements of the concrete is almost as important as Kathryn’s.

“Where the killer found the concrete may be crucial to solving the case and we need to speak to these men about what they did with the concrete once the put it in the car,” she said.

The first man is described as being of Caucasian appearance and aged in his mid-20s to mid-30s. He was about 180cm (5’11) tall, had a medium to large athletic build, sun-tanned skin and brown short messy hair. He was wearing knee length dark beige shorts and a light coloured short-sleeved shirt.

The second man is also described as Caucasian appearance, around 173cm (5’8”) tall with a slim build; dark wavy hair and is described as having a scruffy appearance. He was wearing dark stubbie shorts and a light-coloured short-sleeved T-shirt with no collar.

It has been 10 years since Kathryn Grosvenor’s body was found in Lake Burley Griffin. Kathryn’s body had been weighed down by a concrete bollard which had originated from Anthony Rolfe Drive in Gungahlin.

“This witness coming forward proves there are people out there who know something that can assist police with the investigation,” Detective Senior Constable Casey said.

“ACT Policing urges the men, or anyone who may recognise the men from this description, to contact police.

“Any piece of information could provide the link we need to solve this crime.”

Anyone who has information about the men and the cars described is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. Information can be provided anonymously.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

UPDATE 26/03/12 13:52: ACT Policing have now posted some images to accompany this release.

facefit

red corona

UPDATE 26/03/12 16:25: ACT Policing has now posted this video:

[First filed: Mar 23, 2012 @ 17:10]

Please login to post your comments
18 Responses to In 2002 did you see two blokes nicking a body ballasting hunk of concrete?
#1
Lookout Smithers9:19 am, 24 Mar 12

Ballasting JB? You gone and got your sea legs? lol

#2
KB19713:38 pm, 26 Mar 12

That is a red Toyota Corona in that picture, completely different car to a Corolla.

#3
Malteser3:59 pm, 26 Mar 12

Why is this witness providing this information nearly ten 10 years later? This is very fishy.

#4
Alderney9:08 pm, 26 Mar 12

Malteser said :

Why is this witness providing this information nearly ten 10 years later? This is very fishy.

I think you’ll find to the contrary, this is actually evidence that what some think may be small and insignificnat can lead the filth to another line of enquiry which may prove fruitful and end up (hopefully) solving the case.

It is also evidence that when police play things too close to their chest, they can damage an investigation to such an extent that people are not really sure of what they’ve seen and therefore don’t report it. (disclaimer: this point of view is only valid if the police did not report, at the time, from where they believed the concrete originated).

#5
jessieduck11:15 pm, 26 Mar 12

I don’t know if my memory is serving me right or not but I thought evidence of this nature was presented at the inquest. Maybe they’ve gone back and reinterviewed that witness and are trying to jog other memories.

#6
jessieduck11:20 pm, 26 Mar 12

The facefit is definitely new though

#7
Lookout Smithers11:33 pm, 26 Mar 12

jessieduck said :

I don’t know if my memory is serving me right or not but I thought evidence of this nature was presented at the inquest. Maybe they’ve gone back and reinterviewed that witness and are trying to jog other memories.

Did you attend the inquest ?

#8
jessieduck11:41 pm, 26 Mar 12

Lookout Smithers said :

jessieduck said :

I don’t know if my memory is serving me right or not but I thought evidence of this nature was presented at the inquest. Maybe they’ve gone back and reinterviewed that witness and are trying to jog other memories.

Did you attend the inquest ?

No. I have just followed the case through the media over the years. I would love to see this case solved as I went to school with Kathryn.

#9
Lookout Smithers12:06 am, 27 Mar 12

jessieduck said :

Lookout Smithers said :

jessieduck said :

I don’t know if my memory is serving me right or not but I thought evidence of this nature was presented at the inquest. Maybe they’ve gone back and reinterviewed that witness and are trying to jog other memories.

Did you attend the inquest ?

No. I have just followed the case through the media over the years. I would love to see this case solved as I went to school with Kathryn.

So how would you know if the inquest covered it?

#10
jessieduck9:19 am, 27 Mar 12

Sigh. I think it’s fairly safe to say there was media coverage of the inquest.

#11
Lookout Smithers10:33 am, 27 Mar 12

jessieduck said :

Sigh. I think it’s fairly safe to say there was media coverage of the inquest.

I think you are right. Makes it certain then if you have only that to go on that you have unreliable information.

#12
G-Fresh11:00 am, 27 Mar 12

Lookout Smithers said :

jessieduck said :

Sigh. I think it’s fairly safe to say there was media coverage of the inquest.

I think you are right. Makes it certain then if you have only that to go on that you have unreliable information.

What!

#13
jessieduck12:54 pm, 27 Mar 12

Yeah… you win. I’m out.

#14
Lookout Smithers8:37 am, 28 Mar 12

Sorry . Its just that a few news articles just doesn’t quite cut it in trying to summarize two or three days worth of information put to the coroner. Add to that their need to sell a story and you have a condensed summary of Canberratimisms, equaling hog s***. No offense.

#15
Sandman9:10 am, 28 Mar 12

Malteser said :

Why is this witness providing this information nearly ten 10 years later? This is very fishy.

Up until 2 minutes ago I was unaware of the body being weighed down by a piece of concrete from Gungahlin. Perhaps the witness was the same. A body in Burly Griffin and 2 guys loading a ute in Gungahlin isn’t exactly something you would connect without the correct info.

#16
Lookout Smithers10:18 am, 28 Mar 12

Sandman said :

Malteser said :

Why is this witness providing this information nearly ten 10 years later? This is very fishy.

Up until 2 minutes ago I was unaware of the body being weighed down by a piece of concrete from Gungahlin. Perhaps the witness was the same. A body in Burly Griffin and 2 guys loading a ute in Gungahlin isn’t exactly something you would connect without the correct info.

Lets hope it progresses.

#17
Katsfriend11:23 am, 29 Mar 12

Lookout Smithers said :

Sorry . Its just that a few news articles just doesn’t quite cut it in trying to summarize two or three days worth of information put to the coroner. Add to that their need to sell a story and you have a condensed summary of Canberratimisms, equaling hog s***. No offense.

jessieduck wasn’t presenting two or three days of information. She just stated an equivocal opinion on one fact. Perhaps instead of having a go, you could enlighten us on what was presented at the inquest in terms of the concrete?

#18
Lookout Smithers5:19 pm, 29 Mar 12

Katsfriend said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Sorry . Its just that a few news articles just doesn’t quite cut it in trying to summarize two or three days worth of information put to the coroner. Add to that their need to sell a story and you have a condensed summary of Canberratimisms, equaling hog s***. No offense.

jessieduck wasn’t presenting two or three days of information. She just stated an equivocal opinion on one fact. Perhaps instead of having a go, you could enlighten us on what was presented at the inquest in terms of the concrete?

I wasn’t having a go at all. I was simply highlighting that there is no outcome on this case after ten years so going off what is in the newspaper probably isn’t the best source of “facts”. I wasn’t at the inquest so I wouldn’t have a clue.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.