92-year-old man convicted of 1967 cold case murder

A 92-year-old man has been convicted of the murder and rape of Louisa Dunne, in one of the oldest cold cases to ever be solved in the UK.

Ryland Headley from Ipswich, who was living in Bristol at the time of the murder, had denied the offences but was convicted by a jury at Bristol Crown Court today. 

Louisa, who was 75, was found dead in her home on Britannia Road, Easton, on 28 June 1967. She had been raped and died of strangulation and asphyxiation.  

A review of the case by Avon and Somerset police began in 2023. Modern forensic examination, unavailable at the time of Louisa’s death, obtained a full DNA profile, which identified Headley as the killer.

He has been remanded in custody since his arrest in November 2024 and will be sentenced tomorrow.

Charlotte Ream of the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Louisa Dunne died in a horrifying attack carried out in the place where she should have felt safest – her own home.

“Mrs Dunne’s death continues to have a traumatic impact on her family members: the passage of time has not lessened their pain.

“For 58 years, this appalling crime went unsolved and Ryland Headley, the man we now know is responsible, avoided justice.

“The hard work of the Avon and Somerset Police review team and the South West Crown Prosecution Service Complex Casework Unit has resulted in justice being served, and Ryland Headley faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

“This verdict is a demonstration of the commitment of the CPS, and our partners in the police, to relentlessly pursue justice for the victims of crime, no matter how many years – or decades – have passed.” 

DNA and palm print evidence

DNA and handprint evidence provided compelling proof that Ryland Headley was the man who raped and murdered Louisa Dunne 58 years ago.

During the recent cold case review, a DNA profile of the attacker was obtained from the clothes Louisa Dunne was wearing and matched samples taken from Headley following his arrest for two rapes in 1977.

Forensic analysis showed that DNA recovered from the crime scene in 1967 was one billion times more likely to belong to Headley than someone else.

Four fingerprint experts analysed a partial handprint – from the section  of a palm, between the wrist and the base of the little finger – that was discovered on a window at the back of Louisa Dunne’s house. All four experts concluded that the palm print was left  by Ryland Headley’s hand.

Bad character evidence

Evidence of a defendant’s previous misconduct, such as earlier convictions, is known as bad character evidence and is not automatically admissible in court. The Crown Prosecution Service took the view that Headley’s two previous convictions for rape formed an important part of the case and we successfully argued for this information to be presented to the jury.
While a defendant’s previous convictions are not always relevant to a prosecution, in this case the similarities between the attack on Louisa Dunne and the two similar but non-fatal offences committed by Headley ten years later were too great to ignore. 

These attacks, in 1977, saw Headley break into homes of two elderly women in Ipswich and rape them. One of the women was in her seventies and the other in her eighties. Their accounts of the attacks to the police at the time were read out to the court.

Witness evidence

Due to the time that has passed since the murder of Louisa Dunne, all but one of the trial witnesses in the case have passed away. This meant the prosecution had to rely on written accounts taken from witnesses at the time of the murder.

Under current legislation, witness statements must be verified by a ‘statement of truth’ signed by the witness. This is the starting point for the evidence to be admitted without the witness being called to court.

Because witnesses were not available to give evidence in court, and therefore could not be challenged on that evidence, their statements had to be treated as hearsay evidence instead, and the CPS successfully argued for their inclusion as part of the prosecution evidence.