Get you up to speed: Mystery of mummified remains found in river finally solved six years on | News UK
A coroner confirmed that the mummified remains of an unidentified man, known as The Croft Man, found in the River Stour, Suffolk, in 2020, died from a “violent assault.” The investigation indicates the individual experienced significant head injuries, and efforts were made to conceal his identity.
Police have estimated that the bags containing the remains were likely deposited in the River Stour approximately two weeks before they were discovered, between August 13 and 19, 2020. The investigation remains ongoing, with authorities noting that no matches have been found in national or international databases for the identity of the Croft Man.
Suffolk’s senior coroner, Nigel Parsley, has ruled the Croft Man died from a “violent assault,” emphasising the tragedy of his unidentified status. In response, Suffolk Police Superintendent Mike Brown indicated a criminal element may be involved, noting the likelihood that the remains were disposed of by someone familiar with butchery techniques.
What remains unclear — The identity of The Croft Man continues to be unknown despite investigations into his death.
Coroner confirms identity of mummified remains found in River Stour six years ago
A coroner has confirmed the cause of death for a mystery man who was mummified and discovered in Suffolk in 2020.
The man’s mummified legs, feet, and arms were found by a dog walker in the River Stour on August 27, 2020.
Police divers then discovered skull fragments, bones, and teeth in a plastic bag around 150 metres along the river.
Known as The Croft Man, Suffolk’s senior coroner Nigel Parsley has now ruled that he died from a ‘violent assault’.
There have been no matches in any national or international database for missing people or criminal activity so his identity remains unknown.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
However, radiocarbon dating suggests he was born before the early 1950s and died between 2008 and 2012, so was likely in his 60s or 70s.
The coroner noted that the removal of his hands and other injuries to his head ‘appear to have been an attempt to hamper his identification’.
He concluded it was ‘more likely than not the Croft Man was unlawfully killed.
‘We must remember that the Croft Man was somebody’s son,’ Parsley added. ‘He lived for 60 to 70 years. He may well have had family, he almost certainly had friends.
‘It’s a tragedy we cannot identify him as there must be some loved ones somewhere wondering where their loved one is.’
The pathologist, Dr Ginni Fitzpatrick-Swallow, could not give a cause of death but said there had been ‘multiple blows to the head’.
She added: ‘To completely destroy a skull like that seems from a dismemberment point of view unnecessary.’
The dog walker who found him, Julie Dunn-Beechin, said she spotted two black bin bags in the water and her dogs began to sniff around.
She said it ‘didn’t seem right’ so called the park ranger, joking she may have been watching ‘too many Midsomer Murders’ but was concerned.
Samuel Morgan, the ranger, told the court he looked through a small hole in the bag to see ‘what I thought looked like mummified skin and bone’.
Inside the bag were also rocks, bricks, and what looked like ‘a partially dissolved Toilet Duck soap’, as well as what appeared to be an arm ball joint.
The police were called, and a fingertip search of the riverbed was carried out two days later, where they discovered the third bag.
Superintendent Mike Brown, of Suffolk Police, told the inquest they had estimated the bags were dropped around two weeks before, between August 13 and 19.
‘The most likely and preferred hypothesis is that there’s a criminal element,’ he said, suggesting the person could have ‘skill in butchery’.
DNA testing indicated a white northern European male with blonde or light hair and blue or green eyes.
‘Our victim has likely met a violent and unnatural death,’ he continued. ‘Because of the length of storage, the individual could have been found in a state by somebody who doesn’t want to come to the attention of police and has tried to dispose of them by throwing them away.’
Great article! This really puts things into perspective. I appreciate the thorough research and balanced viewpoint.
Interesting read, though I think there are some points that could have been explored further. Would love to see a follow-up on this topic.
Thanks for sharing this! I had no idea about some of these details. Definitely bookmarking this for future reference.
Well written and informative. The examples provided really help illustrate the main points effectively.
This is exactly what I was looking for! Clear, concise, and very helpful. Keep up the excellent work!