The cases, stories, myths and legends covered in this podcast are important for a whole array of reasons. This podcast was born from a want to tell Welsh stories, but todays case is a little more personal than most.
In fact, there are only three episodes to which I have connection of some kind and today’s is no different.
Because todays case took place in my local area, in fact, it took place in the street next to where I grew up. And while it was over 20 years ago, my memories are strong and defining. I remember be told about it, I remember police visiting to ask when we last saw the victim. And while it’s grainy, unclear and no doubt influenced by what we learnt had happened, to vaguely remember the victim. Not in detail, not in a personal capacity but as someone I saw walking through the street.
I have this one overwhelming memory of her pushing her pram passed our house, while walking somewhere unknown. I don’t know when it’s from, if it’s entirely real, but it’s always stuck with me.
My research into this case also reminded how subjective memory can be and, how impactful rumours are. There was so much information about this case – that I remember from the time – that I now know to have been false.
I want to offer a word of caution before we get into the episode, because today’s case is horrific. It’s containing domestic abuse, drug abuse, potential SA and the murder of a woman and young baby. This episode is not appropriate for many, and if any of these topics might be triggering, I’d urge you to stop the episode now.
In truth, this isn’t a case that I really wanted to cover, not because I don’t believe the story deserves to be told. Because it does. But because I understand the harm that retelling these stories can cause.
However, that was until recently when I realised something - within the next 2 years, the killer could be up for parole. Something that left me feeling incredibly angry at the justice system.
For obvious reasons, this is something that I feel warrants a conversation and for that reason in today’s brief episode, we are discussing the murder of Louise and Tia L’Homme.
It’s fair to say that Louise L’Homme had always been close with her mother, raising her as a single parent, the pair had a good and close relationship. In fact, in an article published in the Daily Mirror in 2005, Louise’s mum, Gina, commented that until Andrew Roberts came into the picture, the pair had never really argued.
As young adult, Louise had met someone and for a brief period of time she left the family home. It was during that relationship that Louise was to give birth to her first daughter. Although her name is in some of the media articles, I don’t see much benefit in it being repeated needlessly here. Her privacy is important and so, I am choosing to omit her name.
Following the breakdown of that relationship, Louise and her daughter moved home and for a short while they all lived together.
A little while later, Louise managed to get her own home and it was while living here that she met Andrew Roberts. Many of Louise’s loved one’s disliked him from the beginning, noticing traits and behaviours that put them on edge.
In that Daily Mirror article, Gina admitted that Louise had been open about Robert’s drug addictions and that while she wasn’t happy about it, Louise was a loving and compassionate person. Louise openly argued to Gina that Roberts deserved a second chance.
A year later, Louise found out she was pregnant and while there were difficulties within the relationship, Louise was determined to keep her family together. Just two months after finding out that she was pregnant, Roberts started using drugs and the arguments intensified.
It’s since been reported that Roberts then spent a period in prison, with his daughter being born whilst he was locked away. Without being intrusive it was impossible for me to find out the date of Tia’s birth.
How long this was for has never been made public, but it’s believed to have been related to several theft related charges.
On the 10th of January 2003, Roberts returned to Tylorstown, the village where Louise and he had lived before his prison stint.
When Roberts was released, he reunited with Louise and the couple resumed their relationship for a short while. However, things were not great, and it’s believed that Roberts had become increasingly controlling and abusive.
What we now know – but probably didn’t know then – was how dangerous this period of a relationship is for women. A plethora of research has now demonstrated that the ‘break-up’ stage is often the most dangerous time for a woman who is being abused.
During the court proceedings, witnesses gave evidence which illustrated this, with witness recounting two particular incidents.
She had visited a night club in Merthyr with Louise, Roberts and a number of other friends. She told: “He would stand by her if she left him to go to dance and would hardly allow her to leave his side.
A few days later, the same witness hosted a party at her house in Aberdare, a village a short distance away from Tylorstown. At the party, she was aware of tension between the couple and witnessed a concerning incident.
“They were locked in the toilet and when they emerged, Louise said Roberts had struggled her ‘to the point of unconsciousness’.”
At some point between this incident and the 15th of February, Louise is said to have ended her relationship with Roberts.
It’s since emerged that Louise and Roberts were witnessed arguing in the street where they lived. According to those witness accounts, Louise had told Roberts that she wanted him to leave, and he is said to have shouted – “Right, if it’s over, nobody else will have you or the baby”.
A few days later, on or around the 15th of February, Roberts returned to the home, having consumed drugs at a friend’s home.
On the 15th of February, the date it’s now believed that both Louise and Tia lost their lives, Gina saw her daughter. She visited her mums property with her older child and asked if her mum would watch her eldest for the evening.
“She’d been arguing with Andrew and asked me to call her later.”
However, when Gina did call, she didn’t answer and Gina presumed that everything had been sorted.
This was the last time anyone is confirmed as having spoken to Louise directly and she was officially last seen on the 15th of February.
On the 16th of February, concerned that Louise had still not got in touch, Gina’s brother visited their home address.
It was Roberts who opened the door, telling the concerned relatives that Louise and Tia were visiting friends in the next village of Ferndale. Something about this didn’t sit right with Gina, who was confident that Louise would have told her had she made those plans. However, with little evidence, they left the property.
The following day, on the 17th of February, and still unable to reach Louise, Gina and family members visited Ferndale to look for Louise. They were not able to locate her and at that point, Gina called the police.
They drove to the home address with their concerns growing by the minute, the house was quiet and with a sense trepidation, one relative entered the property. Climbing up the house using the drainpipe and entering through and upstairs window, those outside – including Gina – remember hearing a scream, shortly after the relative entered. When he opened the door the from inside, his face was white. He’d found Louise and Tia.
At around 5.45pm, the discovery was made, Louise and Tia had been murdered. At the time of her death, Louise L’Homme was only 23 years old and her daughter Tia was 10 months.
She was survived by her daughter, who had still been at Louise’s mother’s address.
The bodies had been located inside a child’s bedroom, underneath and overturned mattress. In a bid to prevent the bodies from being discovered, Roberts had thrown perfume or aftershave over them.
On the 19th of February, the BBC confirmed that police were seeking to interview Andrew Roberts. They appealed directly to him, as well as anyone who might have seen him, pleading for information related to his whereabouts. At this point, they stopped short of calling him a suspect, simply suggesting that perhaps he had important information about the murders. They also disclosed that they had concerns for his welfare.
It later emerged that between the murder and the discovery – which was just after he had left the property – Roberts had continued to live at the home address.
In the statement, police also confirmed that he had been seen leaving the home on Monday the 17th of February. The witnesses seem to have placed him as having left the scenes shortly before the Louise and Tia had been located.
At the same time, they confirmed that they had arrested two men as part of their enquiries – aged 20 and 21 – for an undisclosed crime. They had been bailed pending further investigation.
While the autopsies had yet to be conducted, police were keen to stress that there was no evidence either had been stabbed. One of the many rumours I remember circulating at the time.
It was later revealed that both had been strangled, Louise manually and Tia with an item of clothing.
A few days later, on the 20th of February, Andrew Roberts was in the Tesco carpark in Upper boat, around ten miles away from the home address. It would later be alleged that he had taken an overdose.
At this point, Roberts was arrested but taken to hospital to be treated. A police guard remained stationed outside his room until he was fit to be interviewed.
Court was scheduled for September, but on the 30th of March 2003, Louise and Tia were cremated before being interned in the local cemetery. It’s since been reported, by Gina, that it took a number of years for Louise’s surviving daughter to feel comfortable visiting the grave. But that when she did, it was a moment that neither will forget.
On the 19th of September 2003, Andrew Roberts pleaded guilty to both murders at Swansea Crow Court. His defence argued that Roberts was ‘addled’ by drags and that his drug addiction was responsible for his action. They argued that he had shown huge remorse and regret at his actions and had tried to end his life on two occasions because of shame.
He told the court that: “No words can express the remorse, shame, disgust, horror and guilty he feels.”
He then went on to say that if Roberts could turn back the clock he would do so.
He told the court that: “Roberts had tried to rake his own life shortly after committing the killings by hanging himself from bannisters but failed. He took an overdose of paracetamol just before being arrested, leading to hospitalisation and at one point, doctors believed he might need a liver transplant.”
The prosecution, Peter Griffiths – then a QC, now a KC - disputed this and argued that Roberts was an obsessive and jealous partner. Something that was demonstrated by the above account detailing their experiences of having seen the couple.
He also outlined the prosecutions belief that both victims had “serious sexual injuries” to their bodies.
In the summing up, the judge agreed with the prosecution, acknowledging that while he was a drug addict, this was no excuse for the awful crimes that Roberts had committed.
During the proceedings it was revealed that semen had been found on both bodies, leading the police and prosecution to believe that a sexual assault had taken place. It was something that Roberts denied, but also something that the Judge took into consideration as part of his sentencing decision.
At the time of the sentencing, the judge warranted his crimes as seriousness to be deserving of a long sentence. The judge argued that even the suggestion of a potential sexual assault of both victims warranted a lengthy sentence. So, how long did Andrew Roberts get…24 years, lowered to 23 years on appeal.
There was a brief outburst of anger in the courtroom as Roberts was led to the cells, with male members of Louise’s family rushing towards him.
Following his sentencing, members of Louise’s family spoke to the press, and expressed their sadness and anger over what had happened.
One of them, Jeff Llewelyn, commented that “we can’t get over it all. Drugs had nothing to do with it. He was never any good.’
In the February of 2004, a year after the murders, Roberts wrote a letter to Louise’s mother, asking that two items of ‘his’ – in quotation marks – be returned to him. He claimed that gold signet ring and a pair of gold earrings belonged to him.
The family contacted the police who advised that they might be required to prove ownership and that if they couldn’t, they might be expected to defend the matter in court. The family vowed to do so, with Louise’s mum revealing that she already had plans for the jewellery.
It was her intention to melt gold down and to have something made for Louise’s surviving daughter as a tribute. Something tangible to connect her to her mum and baby sister.
In the article, which was published on the BBC, Louise’s sister, Tania, offered a comment that: “Roberts is not only showing no remorse, he’s actually taunting us – rubbing our noses in it.
The timing of this letter doesn’t feel like a coincidence, and I’m more inclined to belief it’s something far more sinister.
This letter was sent exactly a year to the day that he murdered Louise and Tia, his daughter, and the mother of his daughter. Does that really sound like someone who was showing regret about their actions?
In many ways that is where the story ends, but there was another development in 2021 that temporarily placed Roberts’ name back in the media spotlight. However, this time around, he was merely a note in the bigger story.
It was revealed that Roberts had been having an affair with a female prison officer, and that she was now facing criminal charges as a result.
Aged 38, he’d engaged in a two-month affair with the married, mother of three, with him also somehow having had access to a mobile phone whilst in prison. At the time, Roberts was being housed in HMP Albany on the Isle of Wight and the affair is said to have taken place between the 20th of August and the 20th of December 2018
The woman in question – 32-year-old, Lauren McIntyre – was accused of a plethora of offences relating to her conduct and her relationship with Roberts.
The first offence related directly to the affair, something which is obviously forbidden and against the terms which are set out in the employment contract. The second offence related to the mobile phone which Roberts had, with McIntyre having been accused of not informing about this device AND of providing him her number. She then proceeded to contact him via his contraband phone.
During the court hearing, which took place on the 7th of January, a few text messages between the pair were read to the court.
I am only including these because they cast serious doubt on her defence – which we’ll get to shortly.
In one, Roberts had texted McIntyre, telling her that “today was really hot and risky, but I am needing you right now.” To which she replied, “so fucking risky, I like it though”. That evening that she sent another text which said, “I still keep remembering the first time you kissed me”.
In addition to the messages, she was also accused of having sent him a picture.
She was also accused of having ‘sanctioned’ the beating of a fellow officer, with it being suggested that she’d asked Roberts to beat fellow a prison officer. It was later revealed that she had previously had an affair with that individual. Included in this was the fact that she failed to warn the officer or the prison staff of the intended assault. In fact, on the day it was due to happen, she text Roberts saying, “do what you got to do”.
She had also provided Roberts with the other officer’s phone number in a bid to make him look corrupt.
Finally, she was accused of having held on to information regarding other corrupt offices and of having not informed about this.
Her defence was that she had deliberately built this relationship with Roberts because she planned to utilise him as informant. This defence perhaps falling part because of the fact that she didn’t actually do any informing – it was part of her charge
She claimed that she gave Roberts her phone number as a test, and to demonstrate to him that she trusted him. Her defence barrister then said that she had been “dragged” into Roberts’s orbit.
The judge disagreed and commented that McIntyre would have received training on the “prevention of corruption and inappropriate relationships”. As far as he was concerned, the actions were against the “letter and spirit of the law”.
Finally he cast doubt on her entire defence saying that: “Even if you initially gained his confidence as a means of exploiting wider corruption, you quickly moved on to having a close relationship with him that you passed on information to him and developed a passionate sexual relationship.”
In the end, she was handed a three-year sentence for the offences, with it amounting to gross misconduct and an abuse of public trust. The judge added that due to the gravity of the defence, an immediate and serous custodial sentence was justified.
Back here in Wales, Louise’s surviving daughter spoke to the media, commenting that seeing his name in the press brought the trauma back. She added that: ‘He deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life, not potentially coming out in four years.’
This was written in 2021, meaning that that date is fast approaching.
I fully echo what Louise’s daughter said because 23 years, doesn’t feel like a lot of justice.
Here’s the thing. I am not a huge fan of indefinite long sentences in most cases, I often thing that there must be remove for self-improvement and for people to be given a second chance.
However, this case doesn’t feel like one of those and I’m concerned that he could be paroled. After all, he was a controlling, obsessive and jealous partner, who seems to have also sexually assaulted his victims. He’s shown a disregard for the law in prison, having access to a phone, and engaging in an illegal affair.
Then there’s the fact that he taunted the family with that letter.
Twenty-three years for the murder of a beautiful young mother and her beautiful baby daughter, doesn’t feel anything like justice.