The Peter Marlin Story

F.A.Q.s

Note: The answers to many of the most frequently asked questions

may be found elsewhere in the pages of this website. I therefore ask

that in addition to viewing this page, visitors familiarise themselves

with the entire case history before e-mailing questions, as this will

on most occasions provide you with the answer you seek. Thank you.

Do you personally believe Peter Marlin to be a serial killer?

As a journalist I deal in facts, and at present I do not have the proof I require to fully satisfy my own scepticism. As a result I cannot say a categorical "yes" to this question. However, it should be clear from the evidence of my own actions that I take his claims very seriously indeed. As the sole witness to the events of Friday, 17th October 2003, I naturally occupy a position of greater certainty than many are able to adopt, yet I stop short of declaring complete confidence in Peter Marlin's status as either a serial killer or indeed a hoaxer. Too much uncertainty remains on all sides to allow for such dogmatic statements. I would add however, that I believe the man's claims to warrant the most serious of investigations, and that to dismiss him as a simple fraud seems to me both dangerous and foolhardy in the extreme.

Have any further memorials been discovered?

Others have been reported, yes (see also the Postbag page). The difficulty here is that their existence is either unverifiable (in the case of the 2PM memorial), or has come to light only since the publication of this website and its resultant publicity. Given the ease with which any individual could feasibly create such an item of graffiti, it becomes equally impossible to confirm these latter memorials as the genuine article. Cynicism leads me to doubt their authenticity therefore, and I would advise caution in this matter.

Do you believe Peter Marlin had accomplices?

Regardless of one's interpretation of the case, this is undoubtedly a possibility. I have already raised the question of whether John may have been a confederate of Marlin's, and the events at Shotley Gate increase the likelihood of accomplices still further. If Vic was indeed dead, then Marlin would surely have required assistance to remove his body. If not, then the prospect remains that Vic himself may have been an accomplice. As with much of this case, the confederacy issue remains a frustratingly difficult one to prove, yet I regard it as a strong possibility that Marlin did not act alone.

Why did you not go to the police at any stage between the receipt of Note Two and the discovery of Vic's body?

My failure to notify the police of the progress of my investigation, particularly following my interview with Vic and the later arrival of John's shirt, is an issue which has been raised with me several times. My reasons are threefold. Firstly I harboured constant and significant doubts regarding the truth of the case, and naturally felt it imperative that I convince myself of its legitimacy before attempting to convince others. Secondly, my reporting of the severed finger taught me that the police were unlikely to entertain further tales of murder without strong supporting evidence, and for all my suspicions, the evidence I possessed was at best circumstantial. If a severed finger did not prove loss of life, then neither did a bloodstained shirt, an act of graffiti, or the testimony of a nameless individual in a pub. Finally, I will admit to a certain sense of wounded pride following my first encounter with the police. Having been dismissed so lightly (and understandably so), I could not bring myself to risk further humiliation by returning with more, similarly uncorroborated, stories. I intended to prove my case before reporting it.

Have the police conducted their own investigation into the Peter Marlin case?

I have been unable to ascertain the precise extent to which the police have investigated the Marlin story, yet I am aware that certain enquiries have been made. To date I have heard from various sources, including a small proportion inside the Ipswich police force itself, that a number of minor leads have been followed up, and questions asked, though needless to say these have not so far resulted in any arrests, or, to my knowledge, the discovery of any evidence which might be regarded as conclusive. The official line is that "enquiries are ongoing", though to what degree remains anybody's guess. Vic's assertion, of course, was that the authorities would lack the motivation required to properly investigate such a series of crimes, due to the low status of the victims involved. I would like to think this is not the case.

Why did you tell Vic his conversation was off the record, only to publish the entire transcription? Was it for that reason that Vic was killed - as an informer?

This question results from a simple misunderstanding of this website. The transcript of the Victoria Pub interview, and indeed the entire content of this site, was published for the first time in early 2004. I did not go public with Vic's story in any form until long after his death, and, as I have previously stated, had he not died, this transcription would to this day remain unpublished. It did not, therefore, contribute to his death.

Why would Marlin have taken over three years to kill the first fourteen of his victims, only to rush to kill the last seven in a matter of weeks?

This is another of the case's unsolved mysteries, and I have no strong theory to explain it. I would point out however, that the timescale of Marlin's first fourteen murders is unknown. He states that they took place "in the new millennium" but it does not follow of course that they began on January 1st 2000. The date of his first crime is a matter of pure conjecture, and whilst it does appear that the latter crimes occurred with a far greater frequency, to what extent this is factually true, we do not know.

Did you ever go to press with this story?

No. It was agreed with my editor that in order to best protect both my identity and the credibility of my organisation, they should not run this story. Given its uncertain nature, and the fact that the case may ultimately prove to be a hoax, it was felt that I should present a full case history in a way which would not compromise my own security or risk damaging the reputation of my employers. This website is the result of that decision. In addition I have subsequently publicised the story to some extent on a freelance basis, via methods entirely unrelated to the organisation for which I continue to work, most notably local radio and regional publications.

You've recently allowed extracts from the recordings of Marlin's telephone calls to be broadcast on BBC Radio Suffolk. Will you also be making these recordings available for download here?

I do not have any immediate plans to do so. It was only after much debate that I agreed for those excerpts to be broadcast in the summer of 2004 - my original intention had been to withhold them from public release in order to safeguard my own anonymity. Repeated invitations to appear on radio, however, prompted a rethink, and ultimately I acceded to requests for interviews and the broadcast of selected recordings in order to increase awareness of the case. At present I have no plans to extend this policy further.