Bernard Oliver

Disclaimer: this article contains details which may be upsetting for some readers. Discretion is advised.

January 1967 doesn't jump out of the history pages with any notable events in the UK. That doesn't mean that nothing happened, of course - England famously won the 1966 football World Cup the year before, and the New Years Honours list reflected this by presenting team manager Alf Ramsey with a knighthood, and team captain Bobby Moore with an OBE. Popular children's program Trumpton made it's television debut as the first part of the Trumptonshire trilogy. Charlie Chaplin, the famous icon of the mid-1900s, released what would be his final film, A Countess from Hong Kong. Milton Keynes, which started life as a small village in the Buckinghamshire countryside, was selected by the government to transform into a new town to accept some of the overflowing population of London, more than 50 miles away. The population of the town increased so much over subsequent decades that it absorbed nearby villages such as Bletchley and became one of the largest towns in the country. 

For one family in a district of London, though, January 1967 would be imprinted in their memories as one of the most horrific months of their lives, and the start of a life-long torment. The appalling death of a much-loved sibling and son would leave the family traumatised, never to be the same again. 

This casefile is about the unsolved murder of Bernard Oliver. 

The Disappearance

His siblings kept a close eye on him when they were out together, making sure that he was safe and didn't wander too far. He would enjoy listening to records at home, and sometimes went to the cinema on his own to see the latest picture. His brothers would later say that he generally kept himself to himself, but he seemed content with his way of life.

George and Sheila Oliver separated in 1966, with Sheila moving out of the family home at number 10 Steeds Road and leaving her husband and children to live together in the property. The divorce naturally had a huge impact on the family, especially on the children who were, by then, all in their teens and had known nothing other than a solid family unit. George Oliver continued to work in the printing industry to bring in money to support the household.

In late 1966, having completed his education at a school for children with special needs, Bernard set about finding some employment and successfully obtained a job at a factory in Crouch End working in the dispatch department. By this time, he was 17 years old - albeit looking a little younger than his years - and was a handsome young man with grey-blue eyes, wavy dark brown hair and a scattering of moles across his face and neck, standing at 5feet 3inches tall and slim in build. He was popular in the workplace, with one colleague later describing: '"Bernard was liked by everyone - especially by the women. He was rather quiet and gentle."' Although he was known to have a good sense of humour once he started talking, he generally kept to himself, perhaps preferring to listen and observe the world around him. 

On Friday 6th January 1967, Bernard met a friend - 16-year-old Charlotte Willars, who worked in a nearby chemist's as an assistant - for a coffee in a shop at the top of Muswell Hill. Charlotte would later describe that Bernard had been quiet throughout the evening, but at 8:30pm he had stood up and said: '"well, I'm going to see a friend,"' after which he walked out of the café. There was mention from one of his friends that he may have been heading to the cinema to catch a screening of the film The Ten Commandments, but it's not clear whether he made it to the venue. 

There were some unconfirmed reports that Bernard would buy small gifts for one of Charlotte's friends, whom he referred to as his girlfriend, but this appeared in newspaper articles to be a one-way street, with the girl in question having no interest in the 17-year-old. One of Bernard's colleagues would later tell the press: '"just before Christmas, Bernard said he had three girl friends to take out and would have to buy them all presents. After the holiday, he seemed dejected and advised me to have nothing to do with women. I gathered that his romances had not gone too well."' It's really not clear what the nature of any of these relationships may have been - whether there were some reciprocated feelings, whether they were an attempt from Bernard to attract a girlfriend, or whether they were simply friendly gestures. It's hard to gather from press articles and information online the extent of how Bernard's learning disability affected his day-to-day life and his interactions with people, but it doesn't seem as though he was involved in a romantic relationship at the time of his disappearance. 

It's not clear from press reports what action was taken by police in the immediate aftermath of Bernard Oliver disappearing. It would be nice to believe that a thorough and diligent investigation into how a 17-year-old vanished from the streets of London in the late hours of the evening occurred, but how many times have the families of missing people had to listen to officers telling them that their loved one will likely come home when they're ready? That they may have gone missing voluntarily and will come home on their own terms? Or that they may have had a heavy night on the town and were lying low until they'd recovered? Surely in 2026 Bernard would be classified as a high-risk missing person due to his vulnerability as a young man with a learning disability, but it's unclear what the processes were in the 1960s. 

Bernard's friends and family became increasingly distressed at his absence. It was incredibly out of character for the teenager to be away from home for any length of time, and the lack of the instant communication methods that we have today meant that they could do little but hope that he would get in touch. One of his friends on the Muswell Hill estate where the Oliver family lived, 14-year-old Terry, told the press that Bernard had a pet poodle whom he had called Pepe. Terry described how the dog had been pining for his owner in the days since he went missing, saying: '"I often used to go around with Bernard. All he talked about was working on a farm with animals - he was mad about them."'

The Discovery

Tucked away off the A12 main road in Suffolk, perched almost midway between Ipswich and Colchester, sits the small village of Tattingstone. Furnished with just a handful of facilities - including a pub, a village hall and a church - it lies on the bank of Alton Water, a lake which provides a haven for those in search of some peaceful time outdoors. A lakeside path completes a full circuit of it's edge, with a number of bird hides for twitchers to tuck away in and beautiful parks in which to while away sunny afternoons. 

In the chilly morning hours of 16th January 1967, local farmer Fred Burggy, of Folly Farm, started work on one of his fields which was situated just off the crossroad of the A137 with Station Road and Church Road when his eyes were drawn to what appeared to be rubbish dumped along the hedgerow. Curiosity peaked, and perhaps a little frustrated that someone had used his field to discard their unwanted items, he headed over for a closer look. 

Officers were quick to arrive to the land at Folly Farm, and able to observe for themselves the horror which had been described to them. The two suitcases contained the naked body of an adult male, neatly dissected into eight pieces, as well as a folded sports jacket. 

The village of Tattingstone had little idea how to respond to waking to the information that a dismembered body had been found in their quiet corner of the world. Like Fred Burggy, many of the residents continued their day-to-day activities in something of a daze, unsure how to process the activity which was unfolding around them - police officers and police vehicles had descended on their peaceful haven, and members of the press and media started to appear as the news broke. The village - with it's pub, school and church - were suddenly thrust into the spotlight of what would quickly become a national news story, the previously tranquil roads buzzing with activity. 

Had the area been properly sectioned off, and a boundary drawn around the scene, would forensic teams have been able to find clues which could have helped to develop the investigation in the early days, such as footprints? Was critical evidence destroyed in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the body? These are questions to which we will never know the answer. 

Due to the significance of the inquiry and the brutality of the murder and dismemberment, Scotland Yard were contacted by Suffolk Police and soon became involved in the investigation. Officers travelled from the famous Scotland Yard headquarters to the small village of Tattingstone, working with Suffolk Police in the nearby town of Ipswich.

Perhaps the most shocking part of this case, and maybe the most controversial, was the decision made by Suffolk police in a bid to identify the victim of this hideous crime. After fingerprint and dental record comparisons drew a blank, authorities made the unprecedented decision to release an image of the head of the murder victim to the national newspapers, leaving it to the discretion of the editors of each paper as to whether they sent to image to print. The Co-Op funeral director was asked to prepare the head by making it presentable and displaying it with the eyes open in a bid to obtain a likeness to how the male would have appeared in life. This was, naturally, a shocking decision, but a few media companies did opt to print the image with traumatic and devastating consequences. So effective was the presentation by the funeral director that people who spotted the image on the front page of newspapers weren't aware that the photo was one of a deceased human being.

NOTE: a copy of the photo printed in the Hull Daily Mail is going to be shown below. This is not to cause shock, but to enable an understanding of how the case was presented to the public at the time and in an attempt to demonstrate how awful the impact of this was on the family. Please be aware that this image is about to be displayed.

Chris Oliver, then 15 years old, had been travelling on a bus home to Muswell Hill in the early evening of Thursday 19th January, three days after the body in the suitcase was discovered in Tattingstone. One of his friends was sat beside him and had picked up a copy of the newspaper as they had headed to the bus stop, which he opened on the journey. Chris was later interviewed by Sky News about the moment, saying: '"my mate went 'Chrissy that's your brother, isn't it?' I looked at it and I just knew straight away. There was no mistaking it. I hadn't read the story, I'd just seen the picture and [the headline] 'SUITCASE MURDER' and that's all I could see because nothing else registered.' 

Let me know your thoughts on this. Do you think that the police could have handled this situation differently, or do you think it was appropriate to send this image to the press? Even if the police circulated the image, do you think it was fair for the papers to send it to print? 

The Investigation

This, of course, is standard practice in any murder investigation, but would have been particularly hard when many of the family members were still children. George Oliver's car was thoroughly searched, as was the family home, and the Oliver children were transported to Highgate Police Station in London to be asked questions about their brother's disappearance and what, if anything, they knew about his death. Although I can't find it documented anywhere, I hope that Sheila Oliver was also present at Highgate Police Station - at least so the children had one of their parents with them whilst George Oliver was still in Ipswich. In addition to speaking to Bernard's family, officers were also deployed to his workplace to interview his fifty colleagues in a bid to map out his final hours, and find out who he had been meeting on Friday 6th January. 

Due to the dual locations involved in the investigation - the deposition site being Tattingstone, Suffolk, and the area where Bernard was last seen being Muswell Hill, London - the Metropolitan Police were drafted into the case in addition to the specialist help from Scotland Yard, with Detective Superintendent Harry Tappin taking over as the lead of Operation Tattingstone from Detective Superintendent Tom Tarling, of Suffolk Police.

Laundry marks were commonly used in the mid-1900s to identify the owner of laundry items, especially when bagged items were washed in bulk. Very few homes in the early and mid 1990s would have owned a washing machine or facilities to do their own washing, and laundry was generally outsourced by transporting it to industrial sized launderettes, then collecting it when it was ready. It was essential that launderettes knew which items belonged to which customer in order that they were returned to the right place, as items were emptied out into the industrial machines and washed together. These facilities would have customers from any number of industries or residences, and replacing any lost items would be a costly practice. Originally, laundry marks were added to items by using tape or hand sewing the customer code onto the item, but as time progressed these would be stamped onto the item with a specialised machine. Beyond the 1960s, a practice developed where laundry marks were fixed to the item by applying a label using heat. 

The practice of laundry marking surely gave the police something of a lead in Operation Tattingstone. The towel may have come from a hotel or similar business establishment, and could have the potential to direct officers to the location where the crime was committed. However, if anything did come from looking into the laundry mark, it was never released to the public and it hasn't led to any significant developments in the case. 

One of the primary questions must surely be that if the killer, or killers, wanted to disguise the identity of the victim by leaving him naked and going to the effort of dismembering the body, why would they leave an item of clothing in the case which could quickly be linked to them? Not only that, why go through the significant work of dismembering the body if the intention was to leave all parts together in one place? Surely there were other ways the body could be disposed of without trying to fit it into two suitcases. Did the killer perhaps intend to distribute the body parts in different locations, reducing the chance of the parts being linked together and the victim identified? Were they interrupted in their bid to start discarding the body parts, panicked, and threw both suitcases into the nearest field? So many questions arise from the way the body was disposed of.

Police worked on the theory that Bernard Oliver had been alive when he arrived in the area of East Anglia and the county of Suffolk, although it's unclear why this became the primary theory. There were reports from some of the residents of London that Bernard had been seen in the days after 6th January - few people knew at the time that he had been reported as a missing person, and therefore didn't think to flag a sighting of him to the police. We know that reports of missing people can be slow to gain traction, with police sometimes waiting to see if the person will come home independently. It begged the question - if Bernard had been seen out in London in the days after he failed to come home, what had he been doing? Why hadn't he visited or spoken to his family? Where had he been staying, and who had he been with? And if police were working on the theory that he had been alive when he was transported to Suffolk, when had he been moved there, and why? Is there a chance that it wasn't Bernard who had been seen in the area, but someone who looked very much like him? 

On Sunday 22nd January, a week from the day when the suitcases were thought to have been deposited in the field, authorities set up a vehicle checkpoint on the outskirts of Tattingstone on the A137, approximately 200 yards from where the suitcases had been discovered. Four officers stopped any vehicle passing along that route from the evening until the early hours of Monday morning, asking drivers if they had travelled the same road a week previously and if they had any information which could help the police investigation, showing them images of both Bernard and the suitcases in a bid to jog memories, although little of use was brought forward.

A promising report was made by a Tattingstone village resident when they approached police with a description of a man they had seen in the area on the day prior to the suitcases being found. The resident said that they had noted: 'a man, who was middle-aged and wearing a dark trilby and a long trench coat, walking in the direction of Tattingstone on the Harwich Road, carrying a suitcase.' Although work set about trying to identify this man and ascertain where he had come from, it appears that he was either never located, or was located and eliminated from the inquiry as no update was issued on this by police. 

This meant that tracing these men in the city would be a huge task for police, but also that encouraging them to speak to authorities would be an even bigger task based on the fear of legal retribution. Those who they did manage to contact and speak to seemed to offer little to help develop the case, and no progress was made from this line of inquiry. 

Suspects

For decades, the general public lived under the impression that there had been no key suspects in the murder of Bernard Oliver. The police had suspected that the murder and dismemberment had occurred in Suffolk, and that the act of dissecting the body had been carried out by someone with expert knowledge, but no evidence had existed to back up these theories. 

In 2004, a Freedom of Information request was submitted to the police force in a bid to obtain more in-depth facts relating to the case. The subsequent response provided two names as key suspects in the murder, but this fact-finding mission also raised other suggestions with several plausible possibilities. 

Reddington and Byles

The names produced by the Freedom of Information request transpired to be those of two qualified - and highly controversial - medical doctors. 

Martin Bruce Reddington (born 26th June 1931, died May 1995) would have been 35 years old at the time Bernard disappeared. He was born in Colchester town, just a short distance from Tattingstone, and would likely have been familiar with the Suffolk area - but he also had substantial connections with London and had previously run a surgery in Muswell Hill. 

Reddington had already experienced controversy by the time Bernard Oliver's body was found. In 1965, a warrant had been issued for his arrest on charges of indecent assault against men. On the back of this warrant being issued, Reddington conveniently left the country and made for South Africa whilst inquiries in the case were still ongoing. Although he returned to the UK several times over the subsequent years, attempts by police to arrest him were unsuccessful and his guilt in the 1965 charges remained unascertained. It can't be confirmed if he was in the UK at the time of Bernard's disappearance and murder.

In the 1977 review of Bernard Oliver's case, a private detective approached police stating that she recognised the suitcase with the initials P.V.A., claiming that it was used by a group of three men who frequented a launderette in Muswell Hill. She was able to identify Reddington as one of the men when shown photographs by the police. By the time the case review was being conducted, however, Reddington had moved to Australia and UK police felt that there was insufficient evidence to have him extradited for questioning.

Reddington didn't manage to stay clear from trouble for long, though. In February 1977, whilst working as a medical practitioner in Turramurra, he was arrested on charges of indecently assaulting a man in Sydney, Australia, with the alleged offence being committed sometime between 1st December 1971 and 15th July 1973. He reportedly died in Surrey, UK, in May 1995 aged 63. 

Three letters were found beside his body - one addressed to his family, one addressed to Martin Reddington, and the final one addressed to Scotland Yard. The contents of each letter has never been made public, other than to say that no reference was made to the case of Bernard Oliver, but Byles did apologise for his actions during his lifetime. 

Why did he offer an apology? Well, it transpired that John Byles had emigrated to Australia in the wake of a huge news story breaking in the north of England in the early 1970s. Persistent and dedicated work by police had helped to uncover the sexual assault of multiple young boys between the ages of 9 and 14 in Huddersfield, Yorkshire, as part of what would later be called the Holy Trinity paedophile ring. Five men - the Reverend John Poole, vicar at the Holy Trinity Church, school teacher Clive Wilcock, child care worker Raymond Varley, Dr John Byles and a man named Jack Nicholls - were implicated a crime which involved coercing young boys to visit the vicarage or church where they were assaulted, with photos being taken and sold to indecent magazines in Denmark and the Netherlands. 

When rumours broke of a pending investigation, Byles took off to Australia and left his co-accused to face trial. In 1975, Poole, Wilcock and Varley were found guilty of all charges at Leeds Crown Court, with Jack Nicholls unable to be located for trial and Byles having taken his own life earlier that year. Accusations against Byles were that he had invited boys to his surgery in South London, had plied them with alcohol and then sexually assaulted them - with images again being taken during the assault and sold in Europe to magazine companies. After Byles died, it also emerged that he and his friend Martin Reddington had been suspected of the murder of a boy, whom they'd reportedly had a sexual relationship with, in London in 1973. 

Reddington and Byles' history - although largely unproven - held enough suspicious behaviour and circumstantial information to suggest an involvement in the murder of Bernard Oliver. What if Bernard had been lured to Byles surgery, but something had gone wrong? The way that his body had been expertly dismembered gave weight to a doctor being a candidate as the suspect - their knowledge of human anatomy would have meant that the dissection would have been neater than those without this experience. However, by the time the 1977 case review got underway Byles had been dead for 2 years and Reddington was unable to be located. Their backgrounds on paper were an excellent start, but little evidence existed to tie them further to the crime. 

Joe Meek

Born Robert George Meek on 5th April 1929, the man who would go on to be known as Joe gained a reputation as a hugely influential sound creator, utilising all that the recording studio had to offer in the creation of music. His young interest in electronics and experimenting with building circuits developed even further during his national service in the Royal Air Force where he worked as a radar technician, and he would obtain a role working for the Midlands Electricity Board when he left the service in 1953. From here he would go on to work as an audio engineer in radio production before going on to develop an independent career. As well as writing and producing music for individuals and groups, he also produced music for films and released his own album in 1960 which experimented with use of electronic sound work. He played a pivotal role in the development of reverberation and overdubbing in the recording studio, and was known for experimenting with space-age pop sounds and experimental pop music at his recording studio at 304 Holloway Road in London's district of Islington. 

Meek was homosexual, something which he had hidden from his parents and feared that they would find out. His sexual orientation became known in the years before it became legal in the UK and subjected him to open abuse and discrimination. He was the victim of blackmail in 1963 after receiving a criminal conviction and fine for seeking gay sexual encounters in a public toilet in London, known as 'importuning for immoral purposes' by the police. 

As his mental health deteriorated, Meek started to believe that his rented flat was infested with poltergeists, that his mind was being controlled by aliens, and that he could communicate with photographs - obsessions which slowly began to take over his life and become noticeable to those around him. He became increasingly paranoid of being targeted for the purposes of blackmail, as had happened to him in 1963, with this paranoia focusing on gangsters in London at the time such as the Kray twins. For this reason, he never left his home or recording studio without wearing sunglasses in a bid to conceal his identity. 

Meek's mental health took a dramatic downward turn from it's already volatile state when news broke that the Metropolitan Police were attempting to contact every homosexual man in the city to question them about the murder of Bernard Oliver. His overwhelming paranoid about his parents finding out about his sexuality was exacerbated by the strain of his financial situation, as he had lost much of his working commissions due to the complexity and unpredictability of his mental health. He eventually cracked on 3rd February 1967 following an argument with his landlady, Violet Shenton, over unpaid rent and the noise levels in his flat, resulting in Meek shooting her with a single-barrelled shotgun he had borrowed from an associate, subsequently turning the weapon on himself. 

Although Meek is often mentioned in conjunction with Bernard Oliver's case, it's unclear how the connection came about. Was it to do with his homosexuality and unstable mental state? Could his mental health have deteriorated not because of the police interviewing homosexual men in London, but because he knew something about the case and couldn't cope with the horror? Had he mentioned Bernard in the past? There were rumours that Bernard had briefly worked stacking shelves in the recording studio, but these are unconfirmed. If Meek was connected in some way, would he have had the anatomical knowledge necessary to dismember the body in the neat way it had been conducted? Even though some elements seem like they could connect Joe Meek to the case, there seem to be several more which don't quite add up.

DJ Tony Windsor

In recent years, Sky News released information that DJ Tony Windsor, real name Tony Withers, had been questioned by police in relation to the Tattingstone Suitcase Murder. Windsor was known to be gay, and was also reportedly a good friend of Joe Meek, something which seems very plausible when they both worked in the same industry. 

Windsor would have been around 56 or 57 at the time when Bernard was killed, and worked at the time on the ship MV Galaxy which was being used to host the pirate radio station Radio London. In January 1967, the ship was anchored off the coast of Frinton-on-Sea, approximately 12 miles from where the suitcases were found. A witness had reported seeing a man wearing surgical gloves, with two suitcases resting nearby, at docks near Ipswich in the days leading up to when the suitcases were found in Tattingstone. 

Although it's unclear what led officers to speak to Windsor, they were transferred from the shore onto the MV Galaxy on 6th February 1967, staying on the vessel overnight and leaving on 7th. Windsor was interviewed during the time the officers were on board, but no follow up was arranged. Windsor was known to be an alcoholic, with his addiction gradually worsening in the period leading up to the interview. When officers left the ship, DJ Tony Windsor was fired from his role and transferred to the main land. 

Windsor died in 1985 at the age of 64. No further connection was made between him and the Bernard Oliver case beyond the initial interview. 

Reggie Kray

Violet and her three children were evacuated as a family from London during the war, moving to East House in Hadleigh, Suffolk, which the twins would later describe as their first experience of the countryside. Although they only remained in the area for a year - with Violet reportedly moving the family back to London due to missing her friends - the impact of the single year in Suffolk was long-lasting for the twins. As adults they invested in property near Bildeston, purchasing one house for themselves and one for their parents. 

Their behaviour escalated significantly during this first term behind bars. They became known for assaulting guards, committing arson, throwing tantrums and even escaped at one stage before being recaptured. After being transferred to civilian prison and subsequently being released, they were dishonourably discharged from the army - something which ended any prospects of the pair developing a career in boxing and encouraged both to embrace a full-time life of crime. 

Their subsequent activities are perhaps what made the pair infamous. They became involved in arson, armed robberies, money laundering, and eventually progressed to murder. They ran their gang, which was widely known as The Firm, from Bethnal Green near their home. Despite their reputation and history, the twins ran several nightclubs in the capital city which afforded them something of a celebrity lifestyle, with their charming public personas and lucrative businesses enabling them to socialise and run shoulders with high-profile members of society, with names including Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland and Cliff Richard. They publicised the image they wanted, inviting journalists to photograph them in their famous nightclubs and write articles about their donations of money to charities. This image hid the dark and disturbing activities behind the scenes. 

The police had been following the activities of the Kray twins for many years, but had been unable to gather enough evidence to try them for many of their crimes due to the silence they encountered when attempting to interview witnesses. Such was the extent of the twin's reputation and power that people were too afraid to speak out - especially to the authorities. This ended in 1968 when both Ronnie and Reggie were arrested for murder - Ronnie of the murder of George Cornell in 1966, and Reggie of the murder of Jack McVitie in 1967 - and were tried in what would transpire to be the longest trial in the history of criminal justice in the UK. The pair were sentenced in 1969 to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 30 years each. Their older brother, Charlie, was sentenced to 10 years for his roles in supporting both twins in their crimes. Judge Justice Stevenson said in conclusion: '"In my view, society has earned a rest from your activities."'

Ronnie Kray would end up being transferred to Broadmoor Secure Hospital to serve out his sentence. He had long been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and was certified insane during his detention in civilian prison. 

Two of the Kray brothers would die behind bars. Ronnie Kray died in 1995 after suffering a heart attack, passing in hospital two days later. Charlie Kray, although released from prison after his ten-year sentence for involvement with his younger brother's crimes, was convicted in 1997 for conspiracy to smuggle illicit drugs. He died of natural causes in 2000. The only reason Reggie Kray would die outside of the prison walls was his release on compassionate grounds in August 2000, after being told that he had terminal cancer. He died in a suite at the Townhouse Hotel with his wife, Roberta, by his side, having married her three years previously whilst incarcerated. All brothers were buried in the family plot in Chingford. 

It was during the wake of Reggie Kray's death when further details and rumours of the brother's criminal activities started to eek into the press. Reggie was interviewed shortly prior to his death by the BBC after inviting cameras into his hotel room, with the interview being shown in the 2001 program Reggie Kray: The Final Word. Reggie reportedly confessed to a murder which he had not previously mentioned and for which he had never been charged, although he refused to name the victim. This claim was backed up by a former cellmate. Pete Gillett had been in two separate prisons with Reggie Kray, and said that he had first confessed to the killing the unnamed victim 16 years before he spoke to the BBC. He went on to describe in a documentary: '"sixteen years ago Reg burdened me with the secret of this other murder he did. It was not a villain, not a policeman, but a young boy, a young gay boy... he was disgusted with himself for realising that he enjoyed that sort of thing, knowing he was gay or bisexual, and he shot the kid."'

For example, the murders committed by both Kray twins were exceptionally violent - Ronnie shot a man in front of a pub full of customers, and Reggie stabbed his victim after a gun failed to discharge, with his associates discarding the body at sea. Neither of their known murders tally with the way Bernard was dismembered and discarded. Not only that, the cellmate who confirmed that Reggie had confessed to the murder clearly stated that Reggie had shot the victim. Bernard was strangled. Gillett also mentioned that Reggie had referred to the victim as being gay, and there is no mention of Bernard being interested in the same sex across the information available in the public domain. 

Even the theory that the victim could have been Edward 'Mad Teddy' Smith was called into question after witnesses claimed they saw him in London in the years after he disappeared, and reports were made that he emigrated to Sydney, Australia with his mother. 

Where is the case now?

Although names have been brought to the surface in a theoretical list of suspects over the years, no-one has been firmly linked to Bernard's murder. Each of the people considered as a possible fit for the culprit have passed away, so even if one of them is responsible there is no way the case will be brought to trial. It's unclear if police have DNA evidence from either Bernard's body or the suitcases, but if they do it would rely on samples existing from any of the suspected people to compare to. 

'"When his body was found I was just hollow. I just kept asking myself: 'why?' What was the motive? Why Tattingstone? Suffolk felt a million miles away in those days."' He spoke about the family's response when his body was found: '"my parents didn't go into graphic detail but I was picking up the facts. Some wouldn't talk about it - they would walk out of the room if it was mentioned. Others were just so annoyed. I think it changed all of us in different ways."' Tony said that he hoped by speaking out that someone, somewhere, would come forward with new information - especially if they had felt unable to talk in the 1960s and 1970s. 

It seemed that his wish was granted after police said that they were reviewing new information provided to them in January 2012. A spokesperson said: '"officers have spoken to a gentleman in relation to the inquiry, are reviewing what they have been told and will follow up where necessary."' Further information suggested that the man had come forward in 1970, but a statement hadn't been taken from him at the time. He reported that he had been at Ipswich docks days before the body of the 17-year-old had been found, and that he had seen a man wearing medical gloves with two unattended suitcases nearby. Any hopes that this might help to break the case open soon faded, however, when no updates were issued. 

In 2017, six years after his younger brother had spoken to the BBC, Chris Oliver also gave an interview. In his mid-60s at the time and living in Whetstone, North London, he spoke of the long-term effects that Bernard's murder had had on the family: '"it's just tormenting, knowing what happened to him. We were all boys. At the time I was 15. Bernard was a very gently, friendly person. We used to do everything together."' He was quoted in the East Anglian Daily Times as saying: '"it had a massive impact on us. You can't describe it. Even today it still upsets me. To be honest I don't think any one of us have properly sat down and spoken and grieved about it. It was never really spoken about. At the time there was no counselling. It has done incredible damage. It split my family apart. It is still really raw after all this time. I just feel like I want to burst out crying now. I think I have bottled too much up for years. There was no-one brought to justice. It is frustrating. I know they found my brother's body, but look at the way they found it. They never, ever caught anyone who did this. At the end of the day it's not going to make any difference. I have got my ideas that the Krays had something to do with my brother's death and so has Tony. They all used to go down to this house [in Suffolk]. There were rent boys brought in. There were all sorts of people that went to that place."' 

Chris also spoke about the effect the death had on his parents: '"It devastated my mother and devastated my father. She felt guilty because she left the matrimonial home. All through my life she cried and felt really guilty even up until she died."' When asked about the future of the case, he said: '"anything is possible. You hear about DNA and that. I'm sure that somebody knows. Fifty years is a long time. It won't make any difference. It won't bring my brother back."'

In 2018, Sky News did extensive research on the case of Bernard Oliver and collated as much information as possible before asking for the opinions of different professionals. One of these was clinical forensic psychologist Mike Berry, who described it to be most likely that Bernard was killed within a four to five mile radius of where his remains were found, saying: '"it is extremely rare for offender(s) to dissect a victim and place the body parts in two suitcases. If a body is dissected by a killer, she or he would normally disperse the body parts over a wide area often to avoid the victim being immediately identified. I find it bizarre why they put two suitcases in the same place."' Although he was unable to give a victim profile based on the little information available, he did estimate that the killer would be in their 30s and have a level of maturity and sophistication based on the way the body was dissected and disposed. He also believed that they would have a familiarity with the area of Tattingstone, and suggested that they may have kept items of Bernard's clothing as trophy items, but that it was highly likely that the initials P.V.A. on the suitcase were left there to act as a red herring to police. 

Professor Barry, of Birmingham City University, added to the assessment by Mike Berry by saying: '"Due to the distance between Muswell Hill where he lived and Tattingstone where he was found, I don't think the killer would have dissected Bernard's body and transported him miles away so we have to assume that it's likely he was transported in a vehicle somewhere local to Tattingstone... before he was probably forced to engage in some illegal activity and then killed."'

Despite the information given by the experts not being issued in an official capacity, it does provide some potential insight into elements of the case. Police were convinced that the murder and dismemberment had occurred across the border into Suffolk, even though it couldn't be proved. The suggestion that the crime scene had a higher probability of being within a small radius of the deposition site suggests a much more narrow search radius than was originally considered. The concept that the killer (or killers) were likely to have been in their 30s at the time of the murder links in with several of the names on theoretical list of suspects, such as Reddington and Byles as well as the Kray twins. 

Ultimately, no-one has ever been charged or convicted of the murder of Bernard Oliver. The report from Sky News in 2018 was the last time significant information was submitted to the public domain, although the case remains open. DCI Caroline Millar from Suffolk Police stated in 2017: '"using advances in forensic science such as DNA familial profiling and the experience of current and retired senior detectives, the team are looking for any development that could help with the investigation into the murder of Bernard Oliver, including new information from the public. Even with the passage of 50 years, it is never too late for people to come forward with any information they think may help this inquiry. The investigation into this death remains open and we will not stop looking for the person or persons responsible."'

This statement, although made nearly a decade ago at the time of writing, gives hope that police will persevere until they find an answer. Bernard deserves to rest peacefully in his grave with his killer identified and - if possible after fifty years - brought to justice. 

The impact this case has had on the Oliver family is plain to see from the heart-breaking words of Tony and Chris Oliver. They were raised in a time where things perhaps weren't talked about as openly as they are today, with the Oliver family finding it difficult to put into words how they were feeling. The sheer horror - not only of finding out that Bernard was dead, but of seeing his head photographed in the newspaper - caused trauma which still persists to this day. It isn't something that can be put into a drawer and tucked away. 

The remaining members of the Oliver family deserve to see justice for Bernard. Their gentle, kind and quiet brother was just finding his footing in life, had just started a new job and was starting to earn money of his own. He deserved to keep growing in life and to forge a future of his own. No-one should meet their end in the same way that this 17-year-old did.

He should be remembered for the much-loved boy who loved playing records and going to the cinema, as the boy who spent his childhood riding his bike and running through the woods. He should be remembered as Bernard Oliver - son, brother and friend. 

If you have any information about the murder of Bernard Oliver, whose remains were found on 16th January 1967 in Tattingstone, Suffolk, please contact the Joint Norfolk and Suffolk Unsolve Case Team on 01953 423819 or by emailing unsolvedcasereviews@norfolk.pnn.police.uk

You can also submit information anonymously by contacting CrimeStoppers on 0800 555 111, or by completing their online form here: Giving information anonymously | Crimestoppers

References for text: 

Murder of Bernard Oliver - Wikipedia retrieved 23^rd March 2026

Suffolk Constabulary: Bernard Oliver retrieved 23^rd March 2026

Brother's anguish over Tattingstone 'suitcase murder' - BBC News by Mark Bulstrode, published 30^th December 2011, retrieved 25^th March 2026

Police probe new 1967 Tattingstone 'suitcase murder' lead - BBC News BBC news article, published 18^th January 2012, retrieved 25^th March 2026

Tattingstone suitcase murder: Police appeal over Bernard Oliver death - BBC News published 6^th January 2017, retrieved 25^th March 2026

BBC News | UK | Kray's deathbed murder confession published Sunday 25^th March 2011, retrieved 25^th March 2026

BBC News | ENGLAND | Police to investigate Kray case published Monday 14^th January 2002, retrieved 25^th March 2026

Kray made deathbed murder confession, The Telegraph article by David Bamber, published 25^th March 2001, retrieved 25^th March 2026

50 years on we remember Suffolk’s grisliest crime - the Tattingstone suitcase murder | East Anglian Daily Times article by Colin Adwent, published 6^th January 2017, retrieved 25^th March 2026

Chopped up and placed in suitcases: Mystery of teen's 1967 murder | UK News | Sky News article by Sanya Burgess, published on Tuesday 14^th August 2018, retrieved 26^th March 2026

Killer linked to child deaths | The Argus published on 20^th November 2001, retrieved 30^th March 2026

Teenager 'expertly' cut up and dumped in suitcase as paedophile suspect vanishes - The Mirror article by Tom Pettifor, published on 15^th November 2025, retrieved 5^th April 2026

1967 in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Joe Meek - Wikipedia

Kray twins - Wikipedia

Teddy Smith | The Kray Twins Wiki | Fandom

The British Newspaper Archive – Nottingham Evening Post printed Friday 20^th January 1967, page 17 ‘Suitcase murder probe is stepped up’

The British Newspaper Archive – Daily Express printed Friday 20^th January 1967, page 1 ‘Suitcase victim, aged 17, named’

The British Newspaper Archive – Hull Daily Mail printed Friday 20^th January 1967, page 1 ‘Suitcase victim named as boy of 17’

The British Newspaper Archive – Derby Daily Telegraph printed Saturday 21^st January 1967, page 1 ‘Suitcase murder hunt stepped up’

The British Newspaper Archive – Daily Record printed Saturday 21^st January 1967, page 24 ‘Teenage girls help suitcase murder hunt’

The British Newspaper Archive – Reading Evening Post printed Saturday 21^st January 1967, page 6 ‘Suitcase boy may have known his killer’

The British Newspaper Archive – Hull Daily Mail printed Monday 23^rd January 1967, page 1 ‘Suitcase under the microscope’