Five time nominated BEST BRITISH TRUE-CRIME PODCAST at the True Crime Awards, Independent Podcast Award and The British Podcast Awards, and voted 4th Best True-Crime Podcast by This Week, iTunes Top 25 Podcast, Podcast Magazine's Hot 50, The Telegraph's Top 5, Crime & Investigation Top 20 True-Crime Podcasts, also seen on BBC Radio, Sky News, The Guardian and TalkRadio's Podcast of the Week.
Stanley Court, Woodfield Road, Ealing @Googlemaps 2026 Sept 2022
EP332: THE EALING CROSSBOW KILLER: On Wednesday the 20th of July 1988, at 8am, 36-year-old business executive Diana Mam exited her flat at Stanley Court. Dressed in a smart green suit and stockings, she placed her handbag and briefcase on the floor, and as she locked the door, she applied a final coat of lipstick, ready for a busy day ahead. Only she never made it to work, she never made it to her car, she didn’t even make it from her door. Who killed her and why?
SOURCES: a selection sourced from various archives:
MUSIC:
UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT: How can a sadistic killing be both unsolved and (some say) solved? Find out on Murder Mile. Today, I’m standing on Woodfield Road in Ealing, W5; four streets north of the home of Alice Gross’s killer, five streets west of the brutal murder of Penny Bell, four streets north-west of the penultimate attack by The Beast and three streets south of the custard eating nonce - coming soon to Murder Mile. In a leafy enclave of Ealing near Montpelier Park sits Stanley Court, a block of 32 brown-bricked self-contained flats built in the 1930s to cater for West London bachelors. Back then, being fitted with a double bed, a modest kitchenette and a soft sofa for savouring one’s leisure time, the ambiance wasn’t sullied by the ear-shattering wail of ungrateful brats in need of a good slap, the feted stench of soiled nappies, and every surface spattered with all manner of bodily fluids and jam, as their sexless, broken and eternally knackered parents count the years until they can get out, flee, or just get divorced. Oh yes, tell me how having children is a ‘magical experience’, and when you’ve finished, tell your face. In 1988 though, with greater (and necessary) changes in equality laws, several professionals who lived at Stanley Court were women; career girls who eschewed marriage and babies for the independence to plough a furrow as a high-flying executive with their own flat, car and future. One woman was 36-year-old Diana Maw, a recruitment consultant who had done everything right in her life. She was well-liked, kind, popular, and had never made a single enemy. So, why would someone want her dead? My name is Michael, I am your tour guide, and this is Murder Mile. Episode 332: The Ealing Crossbow Killer. Diana could be summed-up by the platitudes her family and friends shared when told of her murder. It made no sense “as she was liked by everyone”, “she was a lovely woman”, “absolutely delightful”, “no-one had a bad word to say about her”. And this wasn’t a façade, as it was exactly who she was. Diana Stafford Maw was born on the 2nd of August 1951 in Newcastle upon Tyne in the north-east of England. Said to be a well-rounded girl who skilfully balanced every facet of her life, she was popular, sporty, caring and academic, she had no rough edges or abrasive tone, as for her, life was about living. Her passion for education, travel and success, as well as her bright personality, came from her parents. Married in the Scottish city of Dundee during the cataclysmic chaos of the Second World War, Diana was the only child of Sheila, a GP from the earthy industrial heartland of Blackburn in Lancashire, and Theodore Stafford (who she was named after) being a respected eye surgeon from Warwickshire. They were two doctors who shunned the wealth of a private practice and the calm safety of academia to provide care and compassion for the poorest communities during the post-war gloom and the early days of the National Health Service. She was given a great start in life, but unlike many who felt that being pampered or privileged was their birthright, she never became self-centred, or squandered it. Educated at Cheltenham College, a prestigious boarding school for girls, in 1969 aged 18, she won an exchange scholarship and (already having a thirst for travel) she spent the year being educated in New York, which expanded her mind further to opportunities, but also the life of others, both rich and poor. In 1972, she graduated from Oxford Polytechnic with a Higher National Diploma in Business Studies. Aged 21, being career-motivated, for 13 years she worked as a recruitment consultant for a wealth of high-end executive search agencies gaining a reputation as “a professional of the highest calibre”, until November 1986, when she became an executive at the Industrial Society at 3 Carlton House Terrace. Alaistair Graham, the society’s director said “Diana was held in high regard by everyone”. By her mid-30s, she was a high flying executive on a wage of £25,000 (about £85,000 today), she had a sports car, and her own flat in a desirable enclave in Ealing. It was the era of the Yuppies, the ‘young upcoming professionals’ with their red braces, Filofaxes, cocaine habits, mobile phones the size of bricks, and an arrogant belief (being the Wall Street mantra) that “greed is good”, but Diana wasn’t part of that ilk. What grounded Diana was her faith. Both parents were Quakers, and as a frequent churchgoer, she embraced those same values of compassion, justice and honesty, with a solid focus on helping others. Unlike the city boys who lived a life of bragging, jet-setting and getting STDs, Diana was a dedicated council member of The Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa, one of Britian’s oldest charities helping the young and unemployed, where “Diana passionately wanted to encourage people working in the city to help those who did not have their advantages”. And when she wasn’t striving to better the lives of those she had never met before, she read books to the elderly at Chestnut Lodge old people’s home. As a strong and independent woman, she had made the best of both worlds; an amazing job, a strong family life, a solid moral compass, she was financially stable, happy and had a good circle of friends. It made no sense that anyone would want to hurt her… …so why did they? Said to be an “all-round sports woman”, Diana was keen but wasn’t competitive; she liked fell walking and tennis, she was a regular at Ealing golf club playing weekly with her friend Anne to improve her 36 handicap, and she was an honorary Oxford Blue at lacrosse, but it was all for health and happiness. In her spare time, she liked playing Bridge, going to the theatre, overseas travel and choral singing, which aren’t the kind of pastimes where she may make a bitter rival and end in a savage blood feud. Maybe someone was jealous? As her life was desirable, her car stylish and her clothes fashionable, she was attractive, beloved, and living in a luxury flat. It’s possible, as we know she wasn’t murdered for her money, as all of her estate of £181000, about half a million pounds today, went to her parents. In February 1988, five months before her death, she met Michael Stevens, a 37-year-old executive at a premium electronics company. Falling madly in love, and being described as ‘the perfect couple’, by May, Diana had put her £130,000 flat at Stanley Court up for sale, as had Michael, their offer had been accepted on a £300,000 Victorian house in exclusive Mount Avenue, and she was waiting to exchange. Her life was good, she was happy, and it was about to get even better… …only someone was watching her. Stanley Court is a four-storey apartment block just off Woodfield Road, a quiet residential street. Encircled by a u-shaped driveway where parking is for residents only, it stands isolated, off-set from the other buildings, and the only way to access the flats is via the communal door. A few weeks prior, two of the flats had been burgled, so with Diana as secretary of the management committee, to nip this in the bud, they had a security door fitted, so the flats could only be accessed by an entry phone. Obviously, that didn’t stop all the crime. On Sunday 12th of June 1988, five weeks before her murder, the window of Diana’s car was smashed and her briefcase stolen. Nothing of value was inside, except her Filofax, so with it more of an annoyance but easily replaceable, she thought nothing more of it. One evening, her phone rang, but the caller hung up just as she answered. It was probably kids messing around, she thought. Days later, it happened again, but this time, the caller remained silent, listening as her voice became more panicked as she asked who it was and what they wanted, but heard nothing. Again, days later, the calls came through at odd times of the night, waking her with a start, disturbing her with heavy breathing, and making her life a misery, as how could she sleep knowing someone was out to unsettle her. And then, when they did speak, twice they would threaten her, using her name. She told her friends, but never said who the caller was, if she knew them, or what they had said. If it was a prank, it wasn’t funny. If it was a prowler, why had they targeted her? If it was a robber, was it him who had stolen her Filofax, but why hadn’t they tried to extort money from her? And who would want to harm her anyway, as it was unlikely to be an ex-boyfriend as she was on good terms with all. If their aim was to unnerve her, it worked, as every time she left her flat, she felt as if she was watched; whether shopping by herself, walking to her car, or going to the cinema with her boyfriend, Michael. On Sunday the 10th of July, 10 days prior, she tried not let it upset her, as her parents were down from Sheffield. Unaware of her fear as she didn’t want to worry them, they had a wonderful day-out at the Royal Horticultural Gardens at Wisley, Surrey, they watched a performance of Aida (the tragic opera by Verdi) at Earls Court, and her mother Sheila recalled “Diana enjoyed it enormously. She was her normal happy self... I last spoke to her on Saturday before and she was as happy as she had ever been”. Then, the anonymous phone calls ceased, as had the supposed stalking… …but now her killer would take a fatal step. Wednesday the 20th of July 1988 was a typical British summer’s day; it was cool and drizzly. Diana was due to give a seminar that morning so that was on her mind when, and at 8am sharp, she left Flat 24 on the second floor. Dressed in a smart green suit and stockings, she placed her handbag and briefcase on the floor, and as she locked the door, she applied a final coat of lipstick, ready for a busy day ahead. Only she never made it to work, she never made it to her car, she didn’t even make it from her door. At 11:30am, three-and-a-half hours later, 15-year-old Ali Farnam exited the neighbouring flat, and as anyone would do, he didn’t expect the worst, but something innocent. Ali stated “I saw her lying on her side at the end of the corridor near the exit. I thought she had fainted and I could see that her face had gone a horrible grey colour. I was really scared so I went to get my friend”. He thought she’d fallen. “There was bits of make-up scattered all around her, and she was still holding a lipstick in her hand”. But when they returned, “there was hardly any blood. Just a tiny drop. I knew something was wrong. My friend said he thought she was dead but I didn’t believe it. We called the police straight away… I’ll always be haunted by what I saw… her lying there with an arrow sticking out of the side of her head”. The investigation was headed-up by Detective Superintendent Malcolm Hackett. The building was sealed off, the street was closed, house-to-house enquiries were conducted, officers with police dogs and metal detectors scoured the area, and forensics examined the scene. But there was not a single witness to her murder, to her murderer, and the murder weapon was never found. Her keys were by her body, but neither her flat nor car had been accessed. Her briefcase lay beside her unopened, yet the scattered lipstick, purse and letters had clearly come from her missing handbag. But the most baffling aspect of the crime wasn’t this pointless theft, but the method of killing itself. Sticking out from behind her left ear was a six-inch aluminium shafted crossbow bolt. All that could be seen was the plastic flight, as able to travel at 135mph, its steel tip had narrowly missed her skull and severed her spinal cord, buckling her legs underneath her, killing her instantly. With no bruising, no scrapes and no sign of struggle, she had been shot, robbed of an almost empty bag, and her killer fled. With the hallway window shut and no broken glass, the autopsy determined that Diana had been shot at close range, which made no sense, as a crossbow is used for shooting at a distance, not inches away. Ballistics determined that the weapon was a Barnett Trident handheld mini-crossbow, like a pistol, as used by amateur hunters or sportsmen. It was small enough to hide in a bag or jacket, and although its 75lb draw-weight prod made it one of the most powerful handheld crossbows, it’s almost silent. Police checked every seller in the UK, but although a lethal weapon, as shops weren’t legally required to record who bought what and when, with 100,000 sold in the country yearly, it was a fruitless task. Several theories were postulated as to who Diana’s killer could have been. Every known burglar was questioned, but with no signs of a break in, that was ruled out. With the new security door fitted weeks before, this should have limited the number of people who had access to Stanley Court, but it was left open from 7am to 9am daily, for the postman, milkman and builders. And with no doorman, witnesses and being before CCTV was standard, anyone could have entered. With the Police describing her killing as “a million-to-one shot”, some queried if this was the work of a professional assassin? Only Diana had no association with crime, and as Detective Malcolm Hacket later stated “it was the kind of toy which somebody would use for target practice… it is not the sort of weapon an intelligent man would use if he was planning a cold-blooded murder”, especially a hitman. Another theory the detective posed was “the crossbow was intended to threaten her, but discharged accidentally” as it had a hair-trigger, or “we are unable to say whether the bolt was used to stab her”, as above everything else, it looked like a basic robbery. But for what, as no money was missing? One month later, Diana’s handbag was found hidden in bushes on a footpath between Mount Avenue and Montpelier Park, a third of a mile from the crime scene, but nothing of any value was taken. On Thursday the 8th of September 1988 at 9pm, an appeal was broadcast on BBC’s Crimewatch, and an eyewitness came forward. The day before the murder, an unnamed ice-cream vendor spotted “a slightly built blonde young man” passing Stanley Court, carrying a mini crossbow in his leather jacket and a set of crossbow bolts in his hand. He was 19 to 21 years old, 5 foot 8, and had “cold hard eyes”. A photofit was sent to all Police boroughs, but who was he? Nobody knew. With no arrests or suspects, the coroner Dr John Barton asked that the body be held at Ealing Hospital for four more weeks “to give the killer a chance to come forward and say that it was an accident”, but as nobody did, Diana was buried in her family home town of Aughton. And with that, the case stalled. A memorial service was held on the 21st of June at St Peter’s Church in Ealing. In her honour, The Diana Maw Commemoration Fund was established to provide unemployed young people with training, as the most fitting way to remember her. But her boyfriend, Michael Stevens, struggled to come to terms with her murder, recalling “I’ve almost given up hope that the killer would be brought to justice… if someone knew something they would have come forward… more appeals aren’t going to help”. It was a motiveless crime on an unlikely victim by a sadistic culprit who remained unknown. Likely, they were the same person who had broken into her car, stole her briefcase, stalked her and terrorised her by phone, but none of that could ever be proven. Yet what baffled everyone most was the reason. Diana Maw was lovely, kind and caring, a woman madly in love, who had no enemies or rivals… …at least, that was what it seemed, as someone had been watching her. Released in UK cinemas on 15th of January 1988, Fatal Attraction starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close introduced to the world the term ‘bunny boiler’, meaning a manipulative and vengeful ex-lover. Jane Frances Salveson was a 35-year-old design consultant from Brook Green near Hammersmith. Like Diana, they were smart, driven, successful and ambitious, but where as Diana was caring and loving who brought happiness to everyone, although tall, blonde and attractive, plagued by self-doubt and regularly attending group psychotherapy sessions, Jane was said to be jealous, selfish and possessive. In 1982, six years earlier, while on a sailing holiday on the Isle of Wight, she was introduced by a friend to a handsome business executive who had a £17000 yacht called Sodium on Hayling Island. They fell in love, became a couple, and planned to marry and move in together. His name was Michael Stevens. In May 1988, Michael broke up with Jane, and planned to move in with his new lover, Diana. Said to be “depressive, grief stricken” after the break up, anyone else would have let it go, but Jane couldn’t. In court, Janes’ solicitor, Brian Raymond said “she behaved in what she described as an undignified manner… but it should not, however, have been interpreted in the horrendous sinister way it was”. When questioned by Police, having voluntarily submitted herself to be interviewed four times, giving up her fingerprints and allowing the search of her flat twice – admittedly months after the murder - she admitted following the couple on dates to the cinema, but said she “made no direct approaches”. She also denied making the phone calls, or breaking into her car to steal her briefcase and Filofax. Investigating her further, detectives found out that she had posed as a buyer on several occasions to get into Diana’s flat at Stanley Court before the killing, and the house Diana was buying with Michael. On Monday 18th of July, two days before the murder, Jane withdrew money from two cash machines, with one on Haymarket in Piccadilly, perhaps for innocent reasons, or (as the detectives suspected) to conceal her purchase. That same day, a woman – described as “blonde, slim and attractive” - entered the London Trading Post sports shop at 52 Haymarket and bought a Barnett Trident mini crossbow with “a 75lb draw weight prod”, identical to the murder weapon, and a set of six-inch crossbow bolts. Staff remembered her as “crossbows are almost exclusively bought by men”… …the problem was, the suspect seen near Diana’s flat with the crossbow was a man. Jane vehemently denied threatening, stealing from or killing Diana, and although her solicitor retorted “her actions make her a sad woman. She was obsessive, but not a killer”, and yet the Police were rightly suspicious. On Wednesday 30th of November at Ealing Police Station, Jane took part in a ID parade of nine similarly looking woman in front of the three witnesses whose evidence could convict her. The sales assistant who sold the crossbow failed to pick her out, as did the store’s cleaner, yet the ice-cream vendor who said he’d seen “a slightly built blonde young man… with cold hard eyes” picked Jane out, having been asked by detectives about the man he’d seen, “could it have been a woman?”, at which he said ‘yes’. Jane Salveson was arrested that day, even though the evidence against her was purely circumstantial and seven compelling witnesses stated that at the time of Diana’s murder, “she was in a business meeting at the other end of town”, two of whom gave their statements a month before the ID parade. On the 1st of December 1988, at Ealing Magistrates Court, she denied murder, with her solicitor stating “she DID follow her former boyfriend and his girlfriend. But she NEVER threatened violence to either of them. It is a shameful behaviour which she bitterly regrets now… brought about by the break-up”. Committed for trial, her bail was rejected as detectives felt she was unstable, suicidal, and “there may be a very real fear for the safety of her ex-boyfriend at her hands”, and being held on remand at Holloway prison, her solicitor stated “for Jane Salveson to be accused of murder is a terrible mistake”. But on Thursday the 21st of April 1989, all that changed during a routine remand hearing. (End) With Jane bailed in February to a friend’s house on Shakespeare Road in Acton, Clare Reggiori, solicitor for the Crown Prosecution Service admitted “due to the complexity of the investigation, this case was far from clear cut… therefore, on the evidence available we cannot safely seek to convict Miss Salveson of murder”. Jane wasn’t in court, but by the end of the four-minute hearing, she had been acquitted. Her solicitor, Brian Raymond stated “there had been a gaping hole in the evidence” with “the Police becoming fixated by the idea that Miss Salveson was guilty… the real killer of Miss Maw is out there now. Miss Salveson was guilty of no more than being unlucky in love, and her life has been devastated”, adding “there was at least one person with a more potent motive for wishing ill towards Diana Maw”. Jane stated “I am immensely relieved that this ordeal is over and I can become a private person again. I never doubted that my innocence would be proven when all the facts were known”. But by this point, her life had been “irrevocably damaged for wrongful arrest” which no compensation could rectify. With no trial, no further arrests or other suspects, Jane was forced to quit her job, and friends stated “the trauma of the 10 month inquiry left her a recluse and needing psychiatric care… her reputation has been tarnished and she feels it may never recover”. Since 1989, she has not given any interviews. As for the police, whose investigation had serious flaws, rather than the lead detective taking the full responsibility for this abject failure, an unnamed spokesman said “no decision on whether to continue the investigation has taken place, but if new evidence came to light, Miss Salveson could be charged”. Yet the true victims were Diana whose brilliant life was cut short so tragically, her boyfriend Michael whose future with her was taken, and Diana’s grieving parents who stated “one hopes that justice has been done, but it won’t bring Diana back”, as above it all, “the tragedy is that our daughter is dead”. After almost four decades, the murder of Diana Maw remains unsolved… (Fake ending, music distorts). …only that isn’t where this story ends. Having been branded a ‘bunny boiler’ by the press, the Daily Mirror wrote “jilted lover Jane Salveson… denied being the prowler who has been haunting her ex-boyfriend”, and his new girlfriend, Joanna. On the 20th of July 1989, three months after the acquittal and on the one-year anniversary of Diana’s murder, an anonymous letter was sent to the press giving them sordid details about Michael’s life. Two weeks later, his home in Battersea was burgled, a window was smashed but nothing was stolen. Two week after that, damage occurred to his new girlfriend’s garden, and fearing that someone was out to do them harm, as they had begun to receive threatening phone calls at night, they moved out. In the first week of August 1989, Cowes week, Michael’s yacht called Sodium was burgled, and several personal items of his was stolen, including his camera, keys, cheque book, sunglasses, and his diary. And then, in June 1990, while Michael & Joanna were on their honeymoon, a suspected arson attack badly damaged their new three-storey house in Fulham, a fire which could have killed its occupants. Someone hated Michael, his new wife, his happy life, and they wanted them to be truly terrified. Jane Salveson was the primary suspect, with all three cases brought to trial. But again, on the charge of arson and burglary of his home, the CPS dropped the case owing to a lack of evidence. And as for the burglary of his yacht, although his stolen possessions were found in Jane’s flat, she said the diary, keys, sunglasses and chequebook came into her possession “when we exchanged property after our relationship ended”, that a mystery man had tried to frame her by selling her his camera, and again, that she couldn’t have committed the yacht’s burglary as several friends confirmed she was with them. Acquitted of all charges, Jane Salveson was released, and hasn’t been publicly heard of since. In court, her lawyer claimed “she’s felt victimised by the Police and their incessant involvement in every aspect of her life. This is a case that was unlikely to have been investigated with the vigour that it was and she feels bitter that she has borne the brunt of a very powerful and resourceful prosecution team”. And that is where the story truly ends. A sadistic killing which some say is unsolved and yet solved. So, who murdered Diana Maw; was it the jealous and possessive ex-girlfriend of her husband-to-be, or a mysterious unnamed stranger? The Murder Mile UK True Crime Podcast has been researched using the original declassified police investigation files, court records, press reports and as many authentic sources as possible, which are freely available in the public domain, including eye-witness testimony, confessions, autopsy reports, first-hand accounts and independent investigation, where possible. But these documents are only as accurate as those recounting them and recording them, and are always incomplete or full of opinion rather than fact, therefore mistakes and misrepresentations can be made. As stated at the beginning of each episode (and as is clear by the way it is presented) Murder Mile UK True Crime Podcast is a 'dramatisation' of the events and not a documentary, therefore a certain amount of dramatic licence, selective characterisation and story-telling (within logical reason and based on extensive research) has been taken to create a fuller picture. It is not a full and complete representation of the case, the people or the investigation, and therefore should not be taken as such. It is also often (for the sake of clarity, speed and the drama) presented from a single person's perspective, usually (but not exclusively) the victim's, and therefore it will contain a certain level of bias and opinion to get across this single perspective, which may not be the overall opinion of those involved or associated. Murder Mile is just one possible retelling of each case. Murder Mile does not set out to cause any harm or distress to those involved, and those who listen to the podcast or read the transcripts provided should be aware that by accessing anything created by Murder Mile (or any source related to any each) that they may discover some details about a person, an incident or the police investigation itself, that they were unaware of.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMichael J Buchanan-Dunne is a crime writer, podcaster of Murder Mile UK True Crime and creator of true-crime TV series. 
Archives
February 2026
Subscribe to the Murder Mile true-crime podcast
Categories
All
Note: This blog contains only licence-free images or photos shot by myself in compliance with UK & EU copyright laws. If any image breaches these laws, blame Google Images.
|