PRIVATE PARANORMAL INVESTIGATORS

GHOST INVESTIGATION TEAM

We received a further update today, Wednesday 27th March 2019, for the above F.O.I request we made regarding the murder of Elsie Frost, the fresh response has given National Archives more time to reply to us as now our request must pass through more red tape, (The Public Interest Test).

The National Archive response is as follows:-

We are not holding our breath, they are just going through the motions of procedures now so that when the refuse our request they can hide behind the "We followed the correct procedure" routine.

As ever, for those following our investigation, we will keep you notified of our progress.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part 2 of our investigation into Elsie's murder can be seen here by clicking here, The SLS Tapes.

In October 2015, I was driving home on the M1 motorway at 5am, listening to Radio 4's Eddie Mare's 'iPM' programme a listener had written in with a sentence of news, that listener was Elsie's sister Anne, her sentence read:

"Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the murder of my 14-year-old sister. The perpetrator has never been brought to justice and I feel sad about that."

As a result of the email, Anne and Colin were interviewed on BBC Radio 4's iPM programme. They told their story and that of their murdered sister. The interview lasted around 19 minutes but can be summed up by 13 words spoken by Anne:

"Why? Why did it happen? On a Saturday afternoon at half past four?"

So 2 years into researching this case for ourselves, our investigators completed a nighttime investigation of the area and the possibility of other murders of this site in West Yorkshire.

Our investigators retraced Elsie's last steps from Horbury Lagoon to the ABC steps as part of there investigation.murders

This first investigation Video made by our investigators explains the murder, the area and where the murder took place and where Elsie fell. Who knows how many murders have taken place in Wakefield.

The Police investigation is ongoing, and part 2 of our paranormal investigation with the evidence we are writing about here will be published on this site at a later date, so we do not compromise the ongoing police investigation.

The evidence and footage from our investigation are compelling.

If you have read all of this investigation, you would have seen that the police investigators were trying to pin the murder of Elsie all too conveniently on to Peter Pickering, who committed other murders in the South Yorkshire area (The Beast of Wombwell).

I made another Freedom of Information request, as the case was up for review in 2018, so I put a cheeky request in for the information on the case.

This is the reply I got from them, and it stops West Yorks police lazily pinning the murder on to the now dead suspect Peter Pickering.

It is a bit of a scoop for the GITUK team and surprised by the full response given to me in regard to the review that was taken in 2018.

Although the Metropolitan Police request the files remain closed,

The case remains OPEN and classified as UNSOLVED.

Here is the reply in full, received on Wednesday 13th February 2019, only my FOI Ref is redacted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GITUK paranormal investigators the first crew to investigate the 1965 murder site of Elsie Frost

F.o.i update (3)

F.o.i update

We have received the final decisions from our Freedom of Information requests (2nd April 2019) from the Metropolitan Police and the National Archive in the form of two separate email replies.

We are saddened by there response as the information we wanted was from the public hearing at a magistrate court, so the information had already been in the public domain, for some reason the powers that be still want to keep this information under wraps with there reason we shall now detail below.

Email Number 1:

Dear Mr Shackleton,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding a review of:

MEPO 2/11028 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file

MEPO 2/11029 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file: index and material statements 1-1041

Having considered the public interest test we have decided that this information should be withheld. We regret to say this means we cannot make this document open to you or to the public in general.

We explained that some of the information in the document is covered by sections 31 (1) (c) and 38 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

Section 31 (1) (c) of the Act exempts information if its disclosure under this Act would, prejudice the administration of justice.

Section 38 (1) (a) of the Act exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

Public interest tests were conducted in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Please find below the arguments made in favour of and against the release of the information requested and the outcome of the public interest test.

Arguments made in favour of the release of the information requested:
Disclosure of information contained within these records would provide evidence of how the police investigate serious crime, in thiscase the murder of a young girl. As the police service is a public service it is in the common interest that information that demonstrates how the police perform across the range of their duties is made available.  Particularly in cases of crime where there is public concern, such as the murder of a vulnerable young person, there is an interest in disclosing information about the police conduct of the investigation. This concern becomes more acute if the crime remains unsolved. Such disclosure would reassure the public, inspiring their confidence and co-operation whilst engendering a sense of well-being, the caveat being that disclosure would not prejudice any future investigation / legal case or infringe the rights of individuals.

Arguments made against the release of the information requested:
These records contain information that if disclosed into the public domain would prejudice a future criminal investigation and prosecution or any pending legal action. These records contain information that if disclosed into the public domain would cause substantial anguish to the victim’s surviving family.

Outcome of the public interest test:
This case remains a matter of considerable public interest. The case remains the unsolved murder of a vulnerable young woman in a stranger attack. As custodians of information that relates to an unsolved murder, the Metropolitan Police Service has a duty to the victim, her family and the police force in whose jurisdiction the murder happened, to ensure the integrity of this information. The information collected by the Metropolitan Police within these records remain the definitive documentation of the investigation, the leads followed, and the individuals considered as possible suspects.

These pieces contain information, in the form of police, forensic and pathology reports that graphically describe the discovery of the body and the injuries sustained by the victim.Release of this information into the public domain would compromise the mental health and wellbeing of the victim’s family.

It is for these reasons that the Metropolitan Police Service finds that sections 31 (1) (c) and 38 (1) (a) are engaged and the public interest lies in non-disclosure of the information listed.

Section 40 – Personal data

Some of the information within the documents is also covered by the exemption at section 40 (2) (by virtue of section 40 (3B) personal data exemption) of the FOI Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case, the exemption applies because the documents contain the personal information of one or more identifiable individuals reasonably assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which would not include the release of this information into the public domain during their lifetime. To do so would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair and lawful processing of personal information.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision that has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:

Quality Manager
Quality & Excellence Department
The National Archives
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU
complaints@nationalarchives.gov.uk

Please mark your complaint clearly.  You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Assessor
Freedom of Information Centre
Programme Management Office
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:
via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number: F0056023 in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Email number 2:

Dear Mr Shackleton,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding a review of:

DPP 2/4132 – SPENCER, Ian Bernard: murder of Elsie FROST (14) on 19th October 1965 in Wakefield, Yorkshire by stabbing. No evidence offered: main file

Having considered the public interest test we have decided that this information should be withheld. We regret to say this means we cannot make this document open to you or to the public in general.

We explained that some of the information in the document is covered by sections 31 (1) (c) and 38 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

Section 31 (1) (c) of the Act exempts information if its disclosure under this Act would prejudice the administration of justice.

Section 38 (1) (a) of the Act exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

Public interest tests were conducted in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Please find below the arguments made in favour of and against the release of the information requested and the outcome of the public interest test.

Arguments made in favour of the release of the information requested:
There is a presumption of openness under FOI. The interest surrounding criminal cases and transparency of the criminal justice system will increase public awareness of the criminal prosecution process. Releasing information about the decision making process in this case will increase public awareness and accountability of the Criminal Justice System.

Arguments made against the release of the information requested:
This murder case remains unsolved and therefore release of this material would be likely to prejudice any re-investigation or pending legal case.

This file concerns the murder of a schoolgirl and includes details relating to how she was murdered as well as descriptions and images of the injuries she sustained. The detailed information contained within the file would not have been in the public domain. The extent of this detail includes descriptions of the crime scene and post mortem reports as well as witness statements and police reports. The release of this information is likely to be highly distressing for the victim’s family and would be likely to cause them significant mental anguish. Release after this length of time would also be likely to endanger the mental health of other individuals involved in the case.

Outcome of the public interest test:
The CPS is satisfied that section 31 is engaged. The case remains unsolved and release of this information would prejudice further re-investigation and any pending legal action. The victim’s relatives and other individuals involved in the case would have no expectation that these details would be put into the public domain after such a significant amount of time. There is a profound public interest in not endangering the mental health of any individual. The CPS is satisfied that section 38 is engaged and that the public interest in not endangering the mental health of these individuals substantially outweighs the public interest in the disclosure of this information.

Section 40 – personal data

Some of the information within the documents is also covered by the exemption at section 40 (2) (by virtue of section 40 (3B) personal data exemption) of the FOI Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case, the exemption applies because the documents contain the personal information of one or more identifiable individuals reasonably assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which would not include the release of this information into the public domain during their lifetime. To do so would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair and lawful processing of personal information.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision that has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:

Quality Manager
Quality & Excellence Department
The National Archives
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU
complaints@nationalarchives.gov.uk

Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Assessor
Freedom of Information Centre
Programme Management Office
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:
via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number: F0056026 in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

We are thinking of appealing the decisions, with regard that these hearings were held in a public magistrates court in an open hearing, so there should be no need in law to withhold the court transcripts. They could even redact some sensitive inclusions if they thought that necessary.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please remember that this is still an ongoing police murder investigation, and if you follow us and investigate the site yourselves, please remember to be respectfull as Elsie's brother Colin and sister Anne are still alive and be respectfull of the site and to Elsie, also do not do anything to predjudice the police investigation.

If a 'ghost hunt events team' use this as a hunt site I will ensure it will be the last hunt you ever organise.

Cold Case

There have been other suspects and theories in relation to possible suspects;

1) Elsie had stumbled across two men engaged in a homosexual act (homosexuality was illegal in Britain up until 1967).

2) Another witness has described seeing a man in his mid-twenties, dressed in white overalls and on a bike. This led to suggestions that the man, who could be a witness, was a butcher's delivery boy or an abattoir worker.

3) Another theory was that Elsie was meeting up with someone in the days before her death, possibly a boyfriend. Elsie's father had said that the night before the killing, she went to Balne Lane Youth Club in her best clothes, rather than her normal attire and she had asked to stay out later than usual.(or was this West York's Police attempt to tarnish a girls reputation by alleging she was promiscuous, which even to this day wouldn't surprise us, there track record is testament to that).

4) Another lead was proffered by a school friend of Elsie's, who, as a nurse, had heard of a third-hand account of a man confessing in hospital to being her killer. This tied in with the homosexual act angle (See theory No 1) as the man apparently confessed to that taking place and being the reason behind Elsie's death. Whilst this new information was forwarded to the police, it is unreliable because of its third-hand nature and the man was under the influence of drugs when he made his confession.

5) On 27 September 2016, it was announced that Thames Valley Police had arrested a 78-year-old man in connection with Elsie's death.

It was revealed on 29 September 2016 that the man had been bailed after his arrest.

On 6 March 2017 it was reported that the same man had been re-arrested in connection with Elsie's death and that he was also being questioned in relation to an unconnected allegation of rape and kidnap in 1972.

This man was Peter Pickering, or as he was dubbed at the time, "The Beast Of Wombwell".

Peter Pickering, had stabbed and strangled 14-year-old Shirley Boldy in Wombwell, near Barnsley, in 1972 and was suspected of murdering Wakefield schoolgirl Elsie Frost in 1965.

Unfortunately the "Beast of Wombwell" Peter Pickering died on Saturday 25th March 2018, just five days after being convicted of raping a teenage girl in 1972.

Peter Pickering, 80, was convicted on the 20th March 2018 of raping an 18-year-old woman before he raped and killed a 14-year-old child in 1972, for which he had already been convicted.

He died on Saturday evening after falling ill at the Thornford Park Hospital secure psychiatric accommodation in Berkshire, according to police.

Police added that Pickering was also a suspect in a historical investigation into the 1965 murder of 14-year-old Wakefield schoolgirl Elsie Frost.

"We strongly suspected that Peter Pickering was responsible for her murder," said DS Nick Wallen of West Yorkshire Police.

"We had been liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service and it was our expectation that Pickering would be charged in due course."His unexpected death clearly means that will no longer happen. We have informed all those involved in the case of this development and we will be liaising with the West Yorkshire Coroner as to what proceedings are now necessary in relation to Elsie Frost's death."

Pickering how he looked in 1972 Pickerings victims Anne & Shirley, and alleged victim Elsie Frost Centre

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to ask yourself as to 'Why' the West Yorkshire Police investigation have never found the killer of Elsie and a murder weapon, given as to how many people were actually in the area at the time of her death, and it seems astonishing as to how the murder trail went cold so quickly. How many more murders have West Yorkshire police investigators bungled.

Historically looking back in time and even upto the present day, when it comes to child murders or crimes against children, Yorkshire police across the whole spectrum of policing in the area's they serve are quick to put in a large presence initially and after withdrawing then are slow to react, slow to help the victims and put the force's needs first before that of the victim/s.

Unless its a clear cut and shut case, they are reluctant to throw resources at a case if it cannot be cleared up quickly, and then try and pin a murder through LAZY policing onto someone (Like Peter Pickering) who has committed the almost same but not quite the same type of murder onto someone who's 'Modus Operandi' is completely different to anything else they have done.

Also ask yourself why there is a cover up of information regarding Elsie's murder? why the cover up? Why the need to stop freedom of information requests?

Elsie's case is stored at the National Archive under this reference No. MEPO 2/11028

National Archives will not and by law cannot release any information regarding the case until the 1st January 2060 almost 100 years after Elsie's death, WHY is that? so we asked......

Previous requests get acknowleged and no information is forthcoming.

Dear National Archives,

Record MEPO 2/11028 is currently held within The National Archives, and relates to the murder of Elsie Frost at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9th October 1965.

Earlier this year, the decision was made to extend the closure period of this file until 01 January 2060. Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, I would be grateful if you would provide me with all recorded information held by your department relating to the decision to extend this closure period (please note, I am not requesting release of the record itself).

Yours faithfully,

Reply from National Archives to our FOI request:

Thank you for your enquiry of 5th May 2015 in which you asked for all recorded information held by The National Archives in relation to the decision to extend the closure period of the following record:

MEPO 2/11028 - Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of John SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file: 1965-1967

We are handling your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have given it reference number(We have re-dacted this so false claims do not get processed).

We will respond to you by 4 June 2015 in accordance with the 20 working-day time period laid down by section 10 of the Act.

You can find out more about Freedom of Information on our website: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/foi/

Yours sincerely,

Poppy Groves

FOI Request Manager
Freedom of Information Centre
Information Management and Practice Department
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:

via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number(Re-dacted by gituk): in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.

So far we are still waitng for a response.

If there was more public outcry as to why a young girls murder information is basically sealed until 2060 they would be forced to release its contents, what are they hiding?

At GITUKHQ we are researching and scouring the internet for information or a snippet that could lead us to the truth, when we came across another like minded person "Doug Pearson" in July 2018 who was also looking into the death of Elsie Frost but by using the normal police techniques of sifting through the witness statements, testimony and other evidence he could find in determining the who and the why.

Doug is an accomplished author and has written books on other subjects, he was researching for his next book on his website http://www.whokilledelsiefrost.com/ asking for people to come forward to help him, so we duly obliged and offered up our paranormal explanantion, we waited for but didn't really expect a reply from him, as we had contacted and offered the same paranormal explanation to West York's police in July 2017, but obviously they were to busy or laidback drinking coffee and eating donuts and conveniently pinning the blame onto another already caught murderer Peter Pickering (before Pickering's death in March 2018), so we didn't think Doug would see past the paranormal, as apparently we are all weirdo's.

Doug replied with an email that he would like to discuss our version as he was intrigued by us and how we came to our conclusion as paranormal investigators, so after a phone call that went on for over an hour we said our goodbyes and a couple of days went by and Doug contacted us again and asked, after he was thinking over our version of possible events, if he could be privvy to our video evidence of the investigation we conducted, we duly obliged him.

Two days later Doug asked to meet up with us, so I went to his home in Lytham and we sat talking for over two hours, as he was amazed in what he had seen and heard with our evidence. He wants to use our evidence in his book as a possible cause to Elsie's death. He wanted to know what equipment was used, how it works, why it works, and after giving these explanantions he was more compelled to taking our paranormal evidence at face value and I believe I convertered a non-believer into a believer.

However from our conversation I feel he was more open to the quite plausible explanation I now offer you below:

The only other plausible theory is from our Number 1 Theory suggestion that Elsie had stumbled across two men engaged in a homosexual act (homosexuality was illegal in Britain up until 1967, and that was her Teacher and sailing instructor John Blackburn (Married) and Ian Bernard Spencer (Married), after disturbing the male pair, and recognising her teacher John Blackburn, Elsie ran away, and Ian ran after Elsie, catching up with her in the railway tunnel and killing her by repeated knife wounds, whilst this was happenng John had reached the tunnel and was witness to Ian stabbing Elsie.

Weeks later, John Blackburn whilst teaching in class had a break down and was taken to a mental facilty which he never came out of, and that leads us also to the confession from theory number 4, that a nurse had heard of a confession from a patient John Blackburn, but because he was dosed up with painkillers at the time, the police dismissed this potential evdence of confession from a dieing man trying in our view to clear his conscioence before meeting his maker.

So let us look a little deeper in to this theory and recall the events of the day again.

Elsie was a keen and regular sailor and that Saturday, Elsie had been asked to help supervise a group of younger children who were learning how to sail.

It was around 4pm when Elsie left the sailing club to return home with her friends, and at 4:15pm that afternoon, local father Thomas Brown was out for an afternoon walk with his young children and dog. The family were heading on a path that skirted the River Calder and passed by a canal, with a tunnel leading underneath some railway lines.

Upon approaching the tunnel, the family made a horrifying discovery.

Thomas Brown was later to tell the inquest:

“When we got to within five or 10 yards of the bottom of the steps, I saw a girl lain there, whom I now know to be Elsie Frost. She was lying with her left arm on the second step and her head was lying on her left arm and her right arm was above her head on the next step. She was crouched up in an awkward position with her legs underneath her body in a kneeling type of position but more on her left hand side. I went up to her and asked her what was wrong and got my hands under her armpits and picked her up. When I spoke to her I did not get any reply. I did not realise she was as badly injured as she was. At this time, my son was at the top of the banking. I tried to persuade the children to go home but they wouldn’t.”

Within minutes, others had appeared on the scene, and whilst they waited with Elsie’s body Mr Brown ran to call for an ambulance and the police. They included lock-keeper Ralph Brewster and John Blackburn, Elsie’s sailing instructor from the lagoon, and as would be established at the inquest, the last person to see her alive.

Also present was a 19-year-old amateur photographer who had been taking photographs of the river Calder.

Upon arriving, police cordoned off the scene for examination, and removed Elsie’s body to Wakefield Public Mortuary where a post-mortem examination was undertaken.

A search of the area for a possible murder weapon got underway, and the standard police house to house enquiries began.

The post-mortem examination found that Elsie had been stabbed five times — twice in the back, twice in the head, and once through the hand as she tried to shield herself from her killer— with the fatal blow piercing her heart.

She had not been sexually assaulted, and the pathologist concluded that she was still a virgin at the time of her death.

Her cause of death was given as ‘shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds’.

Piecing together Elsie’s final known movements, it was established that Elsie had chosen to walk home a different way to the rest of her friends, and had taken the route that led along the towpath and through the 30ft ABC Tunnel, to avoid scuffing and dirtying her new shoes.

It appeared that the attack had happened as Elsie walked through the ABC Tunnel, where she was savagely attacked from behind. Despite her grave injuries, Elsie had managed to stumble through the tunnel to the bottom of the steps, where she collapsed and died just minutes before being found by Thomas Brown and his children.

A trail of blood leading from the place where Elsie was stabbed to the bottom of the ABC Steps confirmed this.

Aside from the thousands of people in the locality who were interviewed, and thousands of witness statements taken during the manhunt, police did have other clues to go on.

Many people seen near the ABC Steps that day were traced and spoken to, but were ultimately eliminated from the enquiry.

A tan coloured 12in leather knife-sheath with a stag’s head motif had been found tossed over a wall near to the murder scene, but a knife that matched it was either missed or never found, despite a large number of knives being taken and tested as a potential murder weapon.

The murder weapon has never been found. (Hardly surprising if it was Hindley who had attacked Elsie and took the weapon away).

Several people also reported seeing a bearded hitchhiker in a nearby road, and a well dressed driver of an Austin Cambridge car that was parked near the scene. Neither of these men were ever traced.

The film from the young amateur photographer’s camera had also been examined in case the pictures provided any clues – but this again drew a blank.

The inquest into Elsie’s death was held in January 1966 and many people gave evidence.

One of these was John Blackburn, the teacher who was in charge of the school sailing club, and the last person to see Elsie.

John Blackburn told the inquest:

“I beckoned to Elsie and took her out in a boat to give her some instruction, as she had previously got into difficulties when navigating one of the boats. I was out with Elsie Frost in the boat until about five minutes to four. She then helped me to pack away the boats before leaving”.

Whilst a clear motive could never be established, the coroner’s jury did believe that it could name the culprit. The role of the inquest at that time could actually accuse a named person of murder, rather than just the role it plays nowadays which is to establish certain facts and a cause of death. Newspapers the following day reported: “Elsie: Man accused of murder”....... Ian Bernard Spencer.

33-year-old Ian Spencer, a former railway fireman and labourer who had actually given evidence and appeared at the inquest as a witness.

Spencer had been in the area of the murder on that Saturday afternoon, but had insisted that he had been home at least 45 minutes before the murder occurred.

Spencer's wife, mother-in-law, and a family friend could all confirm this – but were never called by the coroner to speak at the inquest.

The finger of suspicion was pointed at Spencer when subsequent inquest witnesses contradicted his story, and claimed that they thought they had seen him close to the area where Elsie’s body was found at around the crucial time.

The jury decided unanimously that the cause of death was murder and “that there is a prima facie case against Ian Bernard Spencer”. Basically, Spencer was being accused of the crime, and was committed to face trial.

Ian Spencer spent more than two months in custody before being cleared at a magistrates court.

It was here that it was concluded there was no case to answer, and the jury were instructed to find Spencer, “not guilty”.

The police were back to square one.

It was common knowledge at the railway where Ian worked that he would swap his shifts with his colleagues frequently so he could be at Horbury, why would he do that?, perhaps so he could be with his male lover?

Why was a mere Magistrate eager to clear Ian so quickly, before this case got to Crown court, was he privvy to information, or told by higher powers at the time to throw out the case before it made it to Crown Court?

We will never know that, and the information in the files held at National Archives will never be disclosed until 2060 ????

If the homosexual angle was pursued by the police properly, they would surely of asked as to why was John Blackburn at the ABC tunnel steps within minutes of the death being discovered, was he with his secret lover Ian Spencer? Why was he not travelling home back to his wife and child??? Homosexuality is something John or Ian could have never admitted to as homosexuality was illegal in 1965 and if not convicted of murder he would have been convicted on a charge of homosexuality, which not only would have of involved a prison sentence in itself, but the fact he/they would have shamed there families and there wives.

Why was Ian Bernard Spencer also in the area at the time. What lawful excuse could he have had? even after getting his family to lie as to his whereabouts, even though more than 12 people recognised Ian and put him in or around the area at the time of the murder

We feel that if this was the plausible cause and reason in to Elsie's death, then this version would be it.

What do you think? Who Dunnit? do you have a view or even know who did it, let us know here. Contact us with your view.

As it stands today 27th August 2018, we do not know who killed Elsie Frost and the motive behind her death will remain a mystery until at least 2060, if I am still around I will be 92, and to be honest, by then, will there be anyone left around from today who will care who killed Elsie when the files will be available for public inspection apart from me.

But up until that day, there are people around who do care.

We will never give up until Elsie and her surviving siblings get the Justice they deserve.

The case is still ongoing as of 24th October 2017.

So, since the last update (above) regarding my initial Freedom of Information request, and to the reply above, I have received confirmation of my request for the missing information, and for the first time, the relevant authorities are going to review the information, this is the copy of the email they sent me.

Dear Mr Shackleton,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding a review of:

MEPO 2/11028 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file

MEPO 2/11029 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file: index and material statements 1-1041

DPP 2/4132 – SPENCER, Ian Bernard: murder of Elsie FROST (14) on 19th October 1965 in Wakefield, Yorkshire by stabbing. No evidence offered: main file

We are handling your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We have not yet decided if these records can be opened. We will respond to you by 27 March 2019.

The National Archives has to consult other government departments in relation to this request.

The FOI Act allows us an extra 10 working days to do so. See section 4(2) in the following link for details of this extension:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3364/contents/made

Ideally, we would wish to respond to FOI requests within 20 working days but in this case, it was not possible.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Assessor
Freedom of Information Centre
Programme Management Office
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:
via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number: F00***** in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

We are hoping that this will give us the extra information we need to take this case forward.

As soon as we receive the FOI response we will update the case file in this section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 of our Paranormal Investigation of Elsie Frost, the murder details, timeline and location

Ian Brady Myra Hindley

The Murder site where Elsie was found. Copyright West Yorkshire Police.

Ghost Investigation Team's alternate theory in to Elsie's death.

Whilst the Ghost Investigation Team were researching Elsie’s case, we directed our attention outside of the box of the West Yorkshire Police investigation, and turned our attention to the Greater Manchester Police investigation in to what was then evolving at the time, The Moors Murderers.

The time line fits, and Myra’s love of sailing had us thinking, if, Myra would be in West Yorkshire area of Horbury Lagoon and give a motive as to why we believe that Myra Hindley was the murderer of Elsie Frost.

So why haven’t West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester forces joined up the dots like we have?

Remember, there was no internet in 1960. Police forces were not joined up, each force were separate entities to each other.

Was the Moors murderer Myra Hindley responsible for the brutal knife killing of 14 Year old Elsie Frost on the 9th October 1965 after leaving a sailing event and murdered whilst walking back to her home, attacked inside a dis-used rail tunnel stabbed 5 times.

Myra Hindley was just as "ruthless as I was", Ian Brady claimed, as he revealed that it was his lover who began the knife attack on their first victim.

Brady told Dr Keightley that it was in fact Hindley who attempted to kill their first victim, 16-year-old Pauline Reade, before he did.

He said that Hindley had lured Pauline into a van that the couple used to take her to Saddleworth Moor.

Brady claimed that Hindley's "expression was taunting and pitiless" as they abused the girl and said that before he could fetch his knife from the van, Myra Hindley was already stabbing Pauline.

We also looked in to whether or not Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) could have been involved, but quickly dismissed this.

Elsie Frost

Dear Mr Shackleton,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding a review of:

MEPO 2/11030: Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file: non-material statements 1-679. Orderable at item level

This piece has been the subject of another Freedom of Information request received recently.

We were required to conduct a public interest test in relation to that request. This is because some of the information is covered by section 31 (1) and 38 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 38 (1) (a) of the Act exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

Section 31 (1) of the Act exempts information if its disclosure under this Act would, prejudice (a) the prevention or detection of crime, (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders (c) the administration of justice.

A public interest test was considered in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service. The outcome of which is as follows:

Arguments made in favour of disclosure

Disclosure of information contained within this record would provide evidence of how the police investigate serious crime, in this case the murder of a young girl.

As the police service is a public service it is in the common interest that information that demonstrates how the police perform across the range of their duties is made available. Particularly in cases of crime where there is public concern, such as murder, there is an interest in disclosing information about the police conduct of the investigation. This concern becomes more acute if the victim is perceived to be vulnerable and the crime remains unsolved.  Another aspect of this case which would have caused the public concern was the randomness and apparent lack of motive. Such disclosure would reassure the public, inspiring their confidence and co-operation whilst engendering a sense of well-being, the caveat being that disclosure would not prejudice any future investigation or infringe the rights of individuals.

Arguments made in favour of non-disclosure

The information within this record relates to a murder that remains unsolved; disclosure into the public domain may prejudice a future investigation.

The information within this record if disclosed could cause the victim’s surviving immediate family substantial distress to the point at which their welfare could be endangered.

Outcome of the public interest test

As an unsolved murder, the Metropolitan Police would desire that the details of the investigation remain confidential for the lifetime of any hypothetical suspect. This closure period would be based on an assumption that the suspect(s) would have been at least 16 years old at the material time. The rationale for this is that there remains a possibility that this murder could still be investigated and that a suspect could be identified, charged, brought to trial and convicted.

The premature release of the case file into the public domain, information from which would form the basis of the prosecution, might prejudice any future investigation and prosecution. It is not possible to identify information from this record that might be released into the public domain at this point without the risk of compromising any future police actions; information that appears innocuous may have significance to an experienced investigator that is not immediately obvious to the lay reader; or may assume a new significance in the light of newly discovered evidence or developments in forensic or investigative techniques. The evolution of new scientific techniques means that cases hitherto considered unsolvable, are being examined afresh. Increasingly police services throughout the country are setting up ‘cold case’ teams to review their case files on unsolved murders; in some instances, these unsolved murders date back to the 1940s.

In this case, an individual was charged with the murder but the prosecution failed to produce any evidence and the case was dismissed. Additionally several other individuals were identified as possible suspects and investigated by the police, but against whom there were no proceedings at the time. It is unlikely, therefore, that this information has passed into the public domain. The police would have controlled any information that was passed to the media and key evidence relating to the suspect who was charged and the other individuals identified as potential suspects would have remained confidential, pending further opportunities to renew the investigation. This information would remain crucial to a future investigation.

The Metropolitan Police Service has a duty to victims of crime, their families and society in general to investigate crimes and bring suspects to justice. Even where an initial investigation has failed to bring about a successful prosecution the duty to pursue offenders, when the opportunity presents itself, remains and it is crucial that the police service manages its information in such a way as not to compromise this obligation. This record should remain closed citing section 31 because disclosure of the information contained therein could risk prejudicing a future investigation and prosecution with the result that a suspect might evade apprehension, which is not in the public interest.

This record contains information that graphically describes the cause of death of the victim, the circumstances of the discovery and the condition of the body. Disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial distress to the victim’s surviving, immediate family to the point where their welfare could be significantly harmed. The record also identifies other individuals who were considered suspects but not proceeded against. Disclosure of this information might distress or otherwise endanger these individuals. This information should remain closed under section 38.

Section 40

Information within the record is also covered by the exemption at section 40 (2) of the FOI Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case, the exemption applies because the record contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which would not include the release of this information into the public domain by The National Archives during their lifetime. To do so would be likely to cause damage and/or distress and would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair, lawful and transparent processing of information of this kind.

Other files requested – cases F0056023, F0056024, F0056026

We have logged and begun to process your requests for the following files:

MEPO 2/11028 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file

MEPO 2/11029 – Murder of Elsie FROST at Wakefield, Yorkshire, on 9 October 1965, and charging with murder, later acquitted, of Ian Bernard SPENCER: Metropolitan Police enquiry action file: index and material statements 1-1041

DPP 2/4132 – SPENCER, Ian Bernard: murder of Elsie FROST (14) on 19th October 1965 in Wakefield, Yorkshire by stabbing. No evidence offered: main file

Appeal process

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision that has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:

Quality Manager
Programme Management Office
The National Archives
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

complaints@nationalarchives.gov.uk

Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the Information Commissioner is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning her investigation.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Assessor
Freedom of Information Centre
Programme Management Office
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:
via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number: F00******* in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elsie Frost Murder, 9th October 1965

On 1st July 2017, GITUK paranormal investigators conducted the first paranormal investigation of the murder site of Elsie Frost, this was conducted with respect and the investigation turned out to be the most emotionally charged investigation we have ever done.

Elsie was just in the right place at the wrong time.

Frost had spent the afternoon at Snapethorpe School's sailing club on Horbury Lagoon, a lake next to the Calder and Hebble canal. When she and her friends left between 3:50 pm and 4:00 pm,

Frost took a different route to the others, avoiding the canal tow-path to prevent her new shoes getting muddy. She was attacked whilst walking underneath the railway line that runs between Wakefield Kirkgate and Horbury. Frost was stabbed five times: twice in the head, once in the hand and twice in the back, with one of the knife wounds piercing her heart, which killed her. The wound in her hand led the police to believe that it was sustained whilst trying to defend herself. The post-mortem showed that Elsie had died of shock and blood loss.

She made it through the underpass and collapsed at the bottom of the ABC steps, as they are known locally (because there are 26 of them). She was found at 4:15 pm by a man Thomas Brown) who was out walking with his 3 and 5 year-old children.

Over 1,200 written statements were taken down, four hundred people who lived within a 0.25 mi (0.40 km) radius of the murder scene were traced and had their movements checked, over 12,000 men were interviewed and a large number of knives of local residents were examined.

In a series of never-before-seen handwritten notes, Brady, 79, describes playing card games and going sailing with 'M' - in an apparent reference to killer Myra Hindley .

So we know Hindley was just as capable of committing murder as Brady was! We also learn that Hindley liked to sail, so was Hindley at Horbury Lagoon on 9th Oct 1965, the same day Elsie was there?

Did Hindley follow Elsie home, and as Elsie entered the tunnel, out of sight of potential passers-by did Hindly strike and stab Elsie 5 times?

This would also concur with the evidence that Elsie was not raped, as she was killed by a woman. Was Hindley interrupted and unable to remove Elsie to her car and then drive to saddleworth moor to dispose of the body in a shallow grave, in a copycat kill, to prove to Brady that she was just as capable as he was, or an attempt to keep impressing Brady or a show to Brady that she was better than he was?

What could the motive be? We believe that this was the act of a delusional woman wanting to make her mark by stalking and then killing a person in her own right, as the net was closing in on her, as Myra was arrested 2 days later on 11th October.

Brady wanted to commit the perfect murder with Keith Bennett, was Myra Hindley trying to Emulate Brady and lure Elsie away with her in a copycat abduction to Saddleworth Moor, murder and then hide Elsie's body on the moor that went wrong?

Did Elsie try to run away after refusing to go wth Myra? and Myra chased her and stabbed her 5 times in the tunnel, so Myra couldn't be reported to the police by Elsie as Myra must have known it would only be a matter of time before the net closed in on her for the moors murders she helped Brady with.

Why would Yorkshire Police even think about linking Elsies death to the Moors murders, That's easy, Brady had only just been arrested on 7th October 1965 (Hindley would be arrested for murder on the 11th October 1965, two days after Elsie Frost's murder) and the facts of the Moors Murders case were only just evolving at the start of Elsie's murder enquiry, This had all the hallmarks of a Moors murder, and the 'Modus Operandi' of a Moors murder, although bungled by Myra at this time.

Despite an intensive police enquiry that was coupled with national coverage (the manhunt was the biggest that the city of Wakefield had ever seen), the police were unable to establish a motive for the crime or indeed, if Elsie was the intended victim or a passer-by to whom the worst had happened. The manhunt was later expanded to include the army and also involved the use of metal detectors in an attempt to find the murder weapon.

After killing Elsie, Myra would have then travelled back home to Manchester in her mini van (undetected), and is this why West Yorkshire police have never found the murderer, and even the Murder weapon used to kill Elsie?

You can't find something if its not there?

Ian Brady and his partner, Myra Hindley, were responsible for the murders of five children and teenagers between 1963 - 1965.

They lured their victims to their home in Manchester, where they were sexually tortured and later buried on Saddleworth Moor above the city.

The Victims

Their first victim was Pauline Reade, 16, who was taken on her way to a disco on July 12 1963.

In November 1963, John Kilbride, 12, disappeared after being snatched from Ashton Market.

Keith Bennett, 12, was taken on June 16 1964 after he left home to visit his grandmother.

Lesley Ann Downey, 10, was lured away from a funfair on Boxing Day 1964.

Edward Evans, 17, was killed in October 1965. His body was found in a spare room in the couple's house, leading to their arrest and later imprisonment.

Arrested

Brady - 7th October 1965

Hindley - 11th October 1965 (2 days after the murder of Elsie Frost).

Brady was given life at Chester Assizes court in 1966 for the murders of John, Lesley Ann and Edward.

Hindley was convicted of killing Lesley Ann and Edward and shielding Brady after John's murder, and jailed for life.

In 1987 the pair finally admitted killing Keith and Pauline.

Myra Hindley at this time was trying for parole, and we feel she was going through the motions of admitting her crimes, but distancing herself away from committing the actual act of murder at all and blaming Brady for these acts. Hence why she would never speak or claim to have been the murderess of Elsie Frost as this would have obviously gone against any chance of parole Hindley thought she had a chance of securing.

Page last updated on 16th March 2019

F.o.i update (3)

F.o.i update

F.O.I UPDATE (4)

F.O.I UPDATE (2)