9 March 2012

Still searching for Kathryn Grosvenor's killer

9 March 2012 | By johnboy

Police and family have renewed their appeal for anyone who holds information about the murder of Kathryn Grosvenor ten years after her body was found in Lake Burley Griffin.

Today (March 9, 2012) marks 10 years since the body of Kathryn Grosvenor was found in Yarralumla Bay, 200m east of Attunga Point in Lake Burley Griffin. Her body was discovered by a canoeist at 9am on Saturday, March 9 2002.

Kathryn Grosvenor was 23 years of age at the time of her murder and was last seen at her Nicholls home on Sunday, March 3 2002.

That Sunday night Kathryn’s mother spoke to her on the phone around 7.50pm. That was the last time police can positively identify that Kathryn was alive.

There were two unconfirmed sightings of Kathryn in the Gold Creek area the night she went missing, including a sighting at the George Harcourt Inn in Nicholls, where she was thought to have purchased cigarettes between 9.05pm and 9.15pm.

Her body had been weighed down by a concrete bollard which police discovered had originated from Anthony Rolfe Drive in Gungahlin.

Despite a lengthy police investigation, no one has been charged with Kathryn’s murder.

Detective Senior Constable Sarah Casey from ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigations homicide team and case officer for the murder said that the investigation into Kathryn’s death is ongoing.

“Police have continued to obtain relevant information and interviewed possible witnesses and persons of interest, but unfortunately this has not led to an arrest,” Detective Senior Constable Casey said.

“We know there is someone out there who knows something about what happened and we urge that person or anyone else who may have information to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

“Any piece of information could provide the link we need to solve this crime, and bring closure to the family,” Detective Senior Constable Casey said.

Kathryn was last seen wearing dark-coloured hipster pants and electric blue platform shoes and was thought to be carrying a green vinyl backpack. She was 178cm tall with a slim build and long brown/red hair.

A $250,000 reward is still in place for information leading to the apprehension and subsequent conviction of the person(s) responsible for the murder of Kathryn Grosvenor and an appropriate indemnity from prosecution will be considered for any accomplice who first gives information.

Information to Crime Stoppers can be provided anonymously.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

adam grosvenor2:08 pm 24 Sep 19

You should be more empathetic and knowledgeable just in case people read this

Smithers11:56 pm 20 Mar 17

juscurious said :

This case is intriguing, but limited information on some issues, like the witness who said they saw a dark Ute in February/March 2002 with the two men obtaining the concrete bollard, has not mentioned the time of day (or have they and I missed it?) and more information on the canoeist, were they part of a squad, or practice ?

Its been claimed by police that information came to them around 2012 after a public appeal for info via calls etc. I have no idea how something so particular and recognisable just sufaces a decade later from more than one source. I’ve lost count how many different coloured cars have featured as being seen around that time bla bla bla. The canoeist just out for a leisurely paddle on lake as far as I was aware. What is it that intrigues you? Nice to know that people think about it still. Sadly, its only ever when a case is resolved that media and all hang em high fools unleash their sentiments in huge numbers. The publicity and awareness should really be used for cases like here where its all but vanished from the general public’s memory, lest you remind them. To date the investigation has delivered zero. Nothing. No evidence pointing to any person, or even a crime scene. The were successful in exposing how botched it was from the outset though. And they did manage to divide an otherwise close family to an irreprable state. I’m intrigued by how long it has been without her parents asking questions of the AFP and their approach. Did they possibly give a substandard effort? I feel its highly likely all eggs were placed in one errr, profile, basket even. If there were some serious issues with how this case was investigated, it will have to come out at some point. Might take some Eastman-like time frames though. 15 years is a long time indeed.

juscurious10:44 am 23 Nov 16

This case is intriguing, but limited information on some issues, like the witness who said they saw a dark Ute in February/March 2002 with the two men obtaining the concrete bollard, has not mentioned the time of day (or have they and I missed it?) and more information on the canoeist, were they part of a squad, or practice ?

Treacle12:09 am 31 Mar 13

Lookout Smithers said :

Treacle said :

Lookout Smithers said

‘I am not sure what your real question here is.’

Perhaps the question should be here: looking at your name and the implied people of your comment post, should we be worried about you?

Oh wow, what a disconcerting approach here. I wouldn’t worry pal. Honest. Ask any question you want. Though make them free of ambiguity . What does “implied people” even relate to?

Read the post again, LS.

Lookout Smithers4:52 pm 14 Jul 12

Treacle said :

Lookout Smithers said

‘I am not sure what your real question here is.’

Perhaps the question should be here: looking at your name and the implied people of your comment post, should we be worried about you?

Oh wow, what a disconcerting approach here. I wouldn’t worry pal. Honest. Ask any question you want. Though make them free of ambiguity . What does “implied people” even relate to?

Treacle1:57 am 14 Jul 12

Lookout Smithers said

‘I am not sure what your real question here is.’

Perhaps the question should be here: looking at your name and the implied people of your comment post, should we be worried about you?

colourful sydney racing identity10:11 am 14 Jun 12

The Dark said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Dark said :

dpm said :

Appaerently, according to some people (posting on the recent ‘panel van’ thread), you don’t need to bother dredging up what really happened…..
This is a good example of why their argument is not correct.

This is in no way what i was saying on the other thread. Please don’t take me out of context on a thread I haven’t even posted on.

same principle.

Seriously, Can you either p*ss off or post something constructive, if you have a problem with what i said, stop being a passive aggressive d*ck and post your thoughts so i can respond in a proper manner instead of just having to listen to your pointless comments.

Wow, I missed this gem from you.

I would be grateful if you could ‘repond in a proper manner’ to the question ‘what’s the difference between this case and the hit and run’, that you are so happy to left unsolved.

Hint – swearing at me does not constitute a response in a ‘proper manner’.

HenryBG9:23 am 14 Jun 12

Lookout Smithers said :

Treacle said :

Lookout Smithers said
‘After ten years CT still haven’t learned the difference between suspect and person of interest. For shame’

How does that fit with today’s Coroner’s ruling in the Azaria Chamberlain case that the dingo was named in the pervoius reports to the protests of people claiming they are harmless unless provoked and here where people were named and recently the police publicly stated they are considering whether there is a serial killer about? Lindy Chamberlain said people now know dingoes can kill, so here we can say people mentioned by the Coroner are possibly in the future are highlighted.

I am not sure what your real question here is. I will just say a Coroner’s findings are almost invariably different to any media’s version. I was pointing out the Canberra Times inconsistant and flippent use of Suspect and Person of interest. Yet they have never bothered to illustrate for the readers the difference between the two.

So the lesson here is – don’t get your “facts” from a journalist?

Lookout Smithers8:59 am 14 Jun 12

Treacle said :

Lookout Smithers said
‘After ten years CT still haven’t learned the difference between suspect and person of interest. For shame’

How does that fit with today’s Coroner’s ruling in the Azaria Chamberlain case that the dingo was named in the pervoius reports to the protests of people claiming they are harmless unless provoked and here where people were named and recently the police publicly stated they are considering whether there is a serial killer about? Lindy Chamberlain said people now know dingoes can kill, so here we can say people mentioned by the Coroner are possibly in the future are highlighted.

I am not sure what your real question here is. I will just say a Coroner’s findings are almost invariably different to any media’s version. I was pointing out the Canberra Times inconsistant and flippent use of Suspect and Person of interest. Yet they have never bothered to illustrate for the readers the difference between the two.

Treacle2:38 pm 12 Jun 12

Lookout Smithers said
‘After ten years CT still haven’t learned the difference between suspect and person of interest. For shame’

How does that fit with today’s Coroner’s ruling in the Azaria Chamberlain case that the dingo was named in the pervoius reports to the protests of people claiming they are harmless unless provoked and here where people were named and recently the police publicly stated they are considering whether there is a serial killer about? Lindy Chamberlain said people now know dingoes can kill, so here we can say people mentioned by the Coroner are possibly in the future are highlighted.

Lookout Smithers1:40 pm 11 Mar 12

TheDancingDjinn said :

Lookout Smithers said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

Deckard said :

The Dark said :

dpm said :

Appaerently, according to some people (posting on the recent ‘panel van’ thread), you don’t need to bother dredging up what really happened…..
This is a good example of why their argument is not correct.

This is in no way what i was saying on the other thread. Please don’t take me out of context on a thread I haven’t even posted on.

What were you saying then? What’s the difference between this case and the hit and run?

Becasue the the first was more than likely an accident – but i think that maybe the driver of said vehicle was probably drunk, and didn’t want to get busted – which now makes it no longer an accident, but a crime. So really there is no differance in this and the panel van case- I do wonder though if (to those who commented about the family of the panel van victim) this family is considered selfish for wanting to know what happened – i mean it’s not gonna bring anyone back from the dead is it ??

Man you are a foolish one indeed. How do you know this ? If you have the answers then should you be speaking to the police maybe? I can only assume, albeit reasonably safely, that you actually are just throwing rumor and innuendo around for a chin wag? If not then you are asking for a shit storm with the lawmen.

Give me one good reason to run from driving over a person, and killing them , if you were not doing the wrong thing like drinking while driving? and if you read i said ” I believe ” i don’t give 2 shits what you believe, but i believe the driver of said vehicle was drunk off his or her ass – wether you think so or not is irrelevent to me.

It is irrelevant to everyone I would think. I could give you a hundred reasons not that it is of any consequence or relevance to this case. I don’t care about what I think of your assumptions and fool hardy conclusions either. I believe you are a complete moron, i could be wrong, but if you believe in something without any evidence to support your belief, then I believe I am most likely on to something.