MURDOCH KIDNAP PLOT
THE BIZARRE CASE RESULTED IN THE MURDER OF THE MEDIA MOGUL’S FRIEND, MURIEL MCKAY
Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch made his move into the UK in 1969 by buying the tabloid newspapers, News of the World and The Sun.
Watching Murdoch on TV being interviewed about the takeover, London tailor Arthur Hosein turned to his brother, Nizamodeen, and said: “He [Murdoch] would be worth a lot of money if he was held captive.”
The Indo-trinidadian brothers hatched a plan to kidnap Murdoch’s wife, Anna, and hold her hostage in return for a ransom. The brothers identified Murdoch’s Rollsroyce and followed it around London, waiting for their moment to kidnap Anna.
What eventuated, however, was a horrible case of mistaken identity in which Anna’s close friend, Australian Muriel Mckay, was instead abducted and believed murdered. No trace of Muriel’s body has ever been found.
The documentary The Wimbledon Kidnapping offers new revelations from Muriel’s family, as well as the Hosein family, about what they believe really happened. While Arthur and Nizamodeen were found guilty of murder, new information suggests there might have been another person who masterminded
‘I’VE NEVER BOUGHT THE THEORY THAT IT WAS JUST THE TWO OF THEM’
the entire operation.
When the Hosein brothers decided to strike just before Christmas in 1969, the Murdochs were in Australia and had loaned their distinctive car to Alick Mckay, one of Murdoch’s top executives originally from Adelaide. Alick was Muriel’s husband.
The Hoseins followed the Rolls-royce to the Mckay’s home in the London suburb of Wimbledon, mistakenly assuming it was where the Murdochs lived.
On December 29, 1969, Alick returned from work to find his home in chaos. A telephone had been torn from the wall, there was tape, twine and a machete in the hallway, and the contents of Muriel’s handbag scattered around. Most disturbing was that Muriel was missing.
Later that night, Alick received a call demanding a million pounds for the return of his wife, setting off a chaotic sequence of negotiations that lasted for weeks. Two ill-fated attempts to deliver the ransom money had to be abandoned, but during the second attempt, the behaviour of the men inside a passing car proved to be the breakthrough that led to a farm in Essex, which belonged to Arthur.
At the farm, police discovered evidence linking the Hosein brothers to Muriel’s disappearance, including a notebook matching the paper of the ransom letters, as well as matching twine and tape. Arthur’s fingerprints were on the letters and had also been found inside the Mckay’s home.
Despite an extensive search of the farm, however, no trace of Muriel was found.
Once the case went to trial, the brothers blamed each other for Muriel’s abduction. Nizamodeen even admitted a connection to some of the evidence. Arthur’s wife, Elsa, who had been away on holiday at the time of the kidnapping, admitted finding a green jacket in her bed upon her return that she later burnt. Muriel was wearing a green jacket when she disappeared.
The Hosein brothers were found guilty of murder, kidnap and blackmail, and sentenced to life imprisonment – but despite pleas from Alick, they never revealed what happened to Muriel. One theory investigators believed likely was that the Hoseins had killed Muriel and fed her remains to the pigs on their farm. Arthur died in prison in 2009, and Nizamodeen was released and deported to his native Trinidad in 1990.
In The Wimbledon Kidnapping, Nizamodeen, now 73, claims: “Let me clear my conscience before I go to my maker.” But some of his present-day recollections vary from his earlier confessions and the array of evidence.
One of Arthur’s children, Frieda, claims another Hosein brother, Adam, who died in 2021, could have been the ringleader behind the operation, leaving his two younger brothers to take the blame. Frieda, tells of the time her mother, Elsa, found women’s jewellery hidden inside the house, possibly belonging to Muriel, and Adam instructed her to throw the evidence into the River Thames.
“I’ve never bought the theory that it was the two of them,” journalist Peter Hardy, who covered the case, said. “They were probably involved in the plot. Were the real killers ever caught? I don’t think so. A lot of the police were unconvinced.”
Forensic speech analyst Dr Dominic Watt evaluated the ransom phone calls and claims a third man could be identified. Back in 1970 at the trial, however, the judge would not allow the recordings to be heard by the jury.
“There are three individuals involved [in the calls], so there is one or more unknown individuals in the mix,” Dr Watt says. “It’s possible the outcome of the trial would have been different if the jury had been able to listen to those recordings.”