This is the moment when Evan, the six-year-old son of Paul and Natalie Heming, unwittingly reveals through his drawing the terrible secrets that would soon play a crucial role in solving a gruesome murder.
“So, you heard something?”
“Yes.”
“What did you hear?”
“I thought it was shattering glass, but we changed the carpet because we took the red, um, big carpet.”
Beneath the surface of this case lies a story that is darker and more twisted than anyone could have imagined.
“But where do you think Natalie is?”
“I have no idea.”
“Firstly, I’m also very worried about Natalie. It’s been a really, really hard time here. Um, she’s had no contact with her children. She’s had no contact with her family.”
“She said, ‘When we walked back to his house, we kissed, and it was cold, and he kept trying to go further and further and further.’ And I kept saying, ‘No, no, no, no.’ So I said, ‘You were…’ So basically, I said, ‘You were…’ She said, ‘Yes, it felt like fun, but it was really cold. Mom was lying, Mom was lying there.’”
“Sally, please. Suzanne speaking. How can I help?”
“Uh, yes, my darling. Um, my daughter has been missing for 48 hours. Um, we were just in Milton Keynes visiting her partner. Um, and he says he doesn’t know where she is.”
“Okay. Correct. Now, can I, uh, please take down your daughter’s name?”
“It’s Natalie Kenn. HEMIN G. It worries me because this isn’t like her.”
“So, uh, what exactly is the concern that prompted you to call the police?”
“He.”
Following a worrying emergency call on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, in Milton Keynes, England, police launched a search for 31-year-old Natalie Heming, who had been missing for 48 hours. Her husband, Paul Hemming, claimed she had gone out on Saturday evening, briefly returned on Sunday, and vanished without a trace by Monday morning.
Since there were no immediate clues, the police first began by searching Natalie’s house for clues.
“Well, please stay physically within the areas where you are. Walk around her and let me know as you go, and make sure she’s not in a closet or under the stairs or in the attic and things like that. Thank you.”
However, nothing alarming or unusual was discovered. They then decided to issue a press release to attract more attention and gather possible information from the public.
“Natalie has been missing since, uh, shortly before 4 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, May 1st. Um, she had no contact with her children. She had no contact with her family. Uh, she didn’t show up for work.”
But one detail stood out as suspicious. Natalie hadn’t accessed her bank account since her disappearance. A warning sign that set off alarm bells for investigators. Further investigations revealed that Natalie wasn’t alone when she went out on Saturday. She had a date with a man named Simon Dennis. The nature of their relationship aroused suspicion.
They were captured together on surveillance cameras, and Natalie seemed to enjoy his affection while separated from her husband. Simon was one of the last people to see her alive, making him a prime suspect. His connection to Natalie, combined with her sudden disappearance, painted a disturbing picture.
The officers scrutinized his every move, searching for inconsistencies in his story. Was he hiding something? Could he have been involved in her disappearance? But as they dug deeper, text messages between Simon and Natalie began to tell a different story. Coupled with messages Natalie had sent to her friends after spending the night with them, the police now believed Simon was not the suspect they were looking for.
Next, the police visited Natalie’s house to question her husband, Paul.
“First, I wanted to ask if it would be okay with you, um, if you could give Becky a tour of the house so that she can basically… what she has is a video camera.”
“There are three children in bed. Okay. We’ll try not to disturb them, because they’ll wake up, and once she wakes up, I won’t be able to talk to you because she’ll be crying. But this can’t wait until morning. It’s obvious we need to look for Natalie now. Will a flashlight disturb her?”
“Thank you. So, how would you describe your relationship?”
“Uh, at the moment, at the moment she is, um, she is fine.”
At first glance, he seemed like a loving and caring father, worried about his wife’s sudden disappearance. But what he said next changed everything. When the police asked to check his phone, his reaction immediately aroused suspicion.
“Do you mind if I look at your phone?”
“Do you know how long I’ll be without it? Um, well, I’ll try to get it done tonight. Okay. Is that alright? If I’m being honest with you, because so many people have been calling me all day, I’d rather get it done, because if someone calls me, it’ll be like… or if Natalie calls me, or…”
“Okay, but are you telling me that I can’t have your phone?”
Now that Simon had been exonerated, all eyes were on Paul. What was he hiding? Why was he so defensive? The answers the police were seeking would reveal a shocking truth. His reluctance did not go unnoticed. And on that basis, the police decided to arrest him as a suspect.
“Excuse me for a second. Go on. He won’t let us take it with us tonight. He wants to bring it to the station tomorrow morning.”
What followed was nothing short of breathtaking. The police officers weren’t sure if his words came from a concerned husband or if he knew more than he was letting on. Back at the station, the police began questioning Paul. He seemed deeply shaken.
“I can see that you’re a little upset. Okay. Um, it’s in our best interest to help you through the process. Yes. Okay. So, we can get information from you if there are things you want to tell us. Okay. So, I don’t want you sitting there in tears, and if you’re having trouble, it would be too difficult if I forced an interview. Shall I get some tissues, if you could?”
“Yes.”
A glaring inconsistency was noticed in Paul’s case. His phone had been switched off for the entire two days Natalie was missing. For a concerned husband, the first instinct would have been to leave his phone switched on, hoping for a call or a message from his missing spouse. This unusual behavior raised serious alarm bells among the investigators, prompting them to dig deeper and gather evidence in an attempt to uncover the truth.
An excerpt from an interview with one of Natalie’s friends revealed some new details.
“She used to live around the corner from me, so we’d meet every morning and walk to school together. Yes. You know, she’s a very caring person, but he always made her feel really bad. He was only ever nice to her. She didn’t have a good life with him.”
This revelation, however, was only the beginning. There was much more hidden beneath the surface.
“And then, um, there was a guy at work named Simon, and when he went to lunch, for example, he’d bring her a drink and things like that. And I could see that she liked him. And I said, ‘Natalie, please don’t look for that affection with Simon. You have to deal with Paul because of the children, and I know how unhappy you are.’”
With this new information, the police decided to question Paul again. This time he seemed much more composed.
“Okay. So, it’s May 5th, 2016. We’re interviewing Paul. If you could go back to that Sunday, just walk me through what you said and what you did.”
“Okay. So, I was just preparing dinner. She came in, the kids came into our kitchen where the glass table is. They sat down. I can’t really describe it well, but she just wasn’t herself. I put my arm around her and kissed her here. I was like, ‘What’s really wrong with you?’ And then I kissed her here. And I just did that to her because she really likes that. So I was just trying to be a little more, um, sensitive, that’s the word for it. She didn’t enjoy last night. I wasn’t very, like, anything happened, and I was like, ‘Well, what happened?’”
However, the details he provided did not match how Natalie’s friends had described him.
“And then she said, ‘Basically, I flirted with a guy at work,’ which I already knew. And I said, ‘It’s okay. Let’s just put all this behind us. Let’s start over.’ And she said, when we went back to his place, we kissed and made out. He kept trying to go further and further and further. And I kept saying, ‘No, no, no, no.’ And he kept going a little further and further and further. And then he panicked me so much that I just gave in. And I said, ‘So, what happened?’ And she said, ‘We didn’t really have sex…’ She said, ‘We did have sex.’ And I asked, ‘Did you consent to that?’ And she said, ‘No, I didn’t.’” So I said, ‘You were…’ So basically I said, ‘You were…’ She said, ‘Yes.’
This statement made the police suspicious of Simon again. But as Paul calmly recounted the events of that night, something felt off. His demeanor was unsettling.
“When she told you what had happened the night before, how did you feel?”
“I felt like I’d let her down. That’s how I felt. She said, ‘I just have to go.’ And I said, ‘Okay. You, you, you have to do this. You have to do this. That’s okay with me. Don’t worry about the children. Don’t worry about anything.’ So I thought, ‘Okay, I’m going to bed.’ So I went upstairs, changed my clothes, brushed my teeth, washed my face, and then just went to bed.”
“Um, and you obviously went to bed, slept in your bed.”
“Yes.”
“Okay. Um, woke up this morning.”
“Yes.”
“Natalie wasn’t there.”
“Yes.”
“Imagine it was Sunday. Natalie has just come home with the children. Um, and did you speak to anyone at all during the night?”
“No.”
“Did you even have to take care of the children?”
“No.”
“Okay. Um, and did you actually leave the house?”
“No.”
“OK.”
These statements he made would soon prove to be false and would strengthen the police’s suspicions.
“This will be the suspect’s vehicle. And he’s missing. So these are the times, the times when he claims to be inside. Uh, but his vehicle is out on the road. Fortunately, you can’t see if he’s in the vehicle, but he’s being captured by the cameras. So either he’s lying to us, or someone else is using his vehicle.”
Paul had no idea that he was walking straight into the carefully crafted trap that the investigators had set for him.
“Could someone else have used either your or Natalie’s car overnight?”
“Natalie could have used my car because my car is parked in front. Yes. But I can’t guarantee whether she did or not. I don’t know. Okay.”
The police investigation uncovered a disturbing clue. Paul’s car had taken a suspicious route, carefully avoiding cameras and police checkpoints. It was the kind of route someone would take if they had something incriminating to hide. When confronted with this evidence, Paul’s composed facade crumbled. He hadn’t expected the police to catch on to him so quickly.
“Well, you told us that you didn’t leave your house on Sunday night into Monday morning, right? Yet your car left the house. What was your car doing outside at that time?”
“No comment.”
The pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place. The police maintained a friendly but firm demeanor as they were about to unravel the darkest part of the story.
“Can you understand how a picture is beginning to form for us? We have a partner who is having an affair. There are marital problems. She comes home. We believe there’s a revelation. Paul, I think you know something more that you’re not telling us. And now is your opportunity to tell us what actually happened that evening.”
“No comment.”
The police finally decided to question Natalie’s six-year-old son, Evan. What he would reveal would unwittingly shed light on the dark, heartbreaking, and crucial truth. His innocent words would become the key to solving the mystery.
“And I want you to tell me about the last time you saw Mom.”
“Quite a long time ago. Quite a long time ago. She left our house at night because she was sick, and she hasn’t come back for quite a long time.”
“Oh, how did you know she was sick?”
“Dad told us. I heard a… I wondered what it was. So I looked down and then I peered through the little door and then I saw her lying on the floor. Okay.” (Note: “saw second in the bone” was translated in context)
But as the investigation progressed, the story became even more devastating, revealing layers of heartbreak that no one could have foreseen.
“So, you heard something?”
“Yes.”
“What did you hear?”
“I thought it was shattering glass, but it wasn’t.”
The words from Evans’ mouth began to unravel the mystery. But it was his drawing of her living room that unlocked far darker secrets.
“It felt like thunder, but it was really cold. Mom was lying down, Mom was lying there, but we changed the carpet because we took the red, um, big carpet, um, um, to Dad’s work so it could be washed. Okay.”
“And Dad took the big red carpet to work to be washed.”
“Yes. Okay.”
“So, what shape is your living room? Can you show it to me?”
Using Evans’ drawing, the police searched Natalie’s house. The forensic team uncovered something truly horrifying.
“We have many bloodstains on the corner of the coffee table. So if you have the drawing that little Debon drew, and at the end where he drew the wet spot on the carpet, that corner of the coffee table has many small bloodstains.”
Traces of blood were found in the trunk of Paul’s car, providing a crucial piece of evidence. With this discovery, the case took a dark turn. Natalie was no longer a missing person, but the victim of a murder investigation. The evidence pointed to a devastating conclusion: Paul had likely murdered Natalie on the afternoon of May 1st, after learning of her affair with Simon, and then disposed of her body.
Armed with this theory, the police prepared for a final round of questioning with Paul.
“Do you recognize this car?”
“Yes.”
“Is this your car?”
“This is my company car. Yes.”
“Okay. Um, Paul, what can you tell me about the blood on this car?”
“Uh, the blood could either be mine, it could be Natalie’s because Natalie had access and was insured to drive the car. Okay.”
“That one, the photo on the cover.”
“Yes.”
“Where there’s an arrow, there’s a drop of blood. Okay. What can you tell me about that?”
“I definitely remember Natalie complaining about having cuts. I had cuts. I cut myself slightly yesterday and there was a little bit of surface blood, but it wasn’t dripping. It wasn’t airborne.”
“Okay. And these are the drops of blood. I know for sure that at home, if we cut ourselves on something like this, the first thing we do is, could it be in the air?”
Paul’s answers, however, were clever and calculated.
“Paul, where do you think Natalie is?”
“I have no idea.”
He was cunning and skillfully denied any involvement, no matter how directly the police confronted him.
“Can you see the picture we are putting together, and the concerns we have?”
“Firstly, I am also very worried about Natalie.”
“They don’t seem very upset.”
“It’s been like a, a hard, hard time here and, uh, my mind is like a… In my heart I know she’s not dead. In my heart I know that. I wish Nati would walk through the door, but I can’t perform miracles.”
But Paul was resilient and continued to deny everything.
“You were the last person to see her alive. You say that Natalie returned to your home on Sunday and revealed to you that she had been raped.”
“Oh my God, unbelievable.”
“She told her friend Becky on Sunday morning. We had sex three times. We say these are not the words of a woman who was raped. We say that on Saturday night you were concerned that she was out with a guy from work who you knew had a crush on her. We say this all came to a head on Sunday night when she came home and you found out she had sex with another man, and you killed her. Do you have anything to say to that?”
“What you’re saying is that I killed my partner. I disposed of her body. I cleaned the house, made it look spotless, managed to cook them dinner, and many other things without them knowing.”
“That’s exactly what we’re saying, Paul.”
“Impossible.”
Realizing that obtaining a confession was unlikely, the police decided to hand the case over to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). With the evidence in hand, Paul Hemming was formally charged with the murder of Natalie Heming.
“The Crown Prosecution Service has made a decision. We’re going to go through it with you now. Okay. The officer is going to advise you. Okay. I’ll read it here. Just understand where you are. Um, Paul, you don’t have to say anything. It could harm your defense if you don’t mention something now that you’ll later rely on in court. But anything you do say can be used as evidence. Paul, you are charged with, um, murdering Natalie Heming between May 1, 2016, and May 2, 2016, at 7 Ordinary Avenue, Newton’s, Milton Keynes. This is a contravention of common law. Do you have anything to say to that?”
“I am not guilty.”
At the same time, the police intensified their search for Natalie’s body after following up on a discovered lead.
“So, yes. Yes, it’s worth mentioning the background. The person we spoke to said that she saw a dark hatchback, hatchback-style car in what was described as an odd position, at a double gate, near the one that practically leads to the railway line. Yes. She also said that she saw a man walking up the hill from the railway line, and she thought the whole thing was a bit strange.”
But despite their efforts, they found nothing. Time was ticking, and without the body, there was a real possibility that Paul could be released. To prevent this, they expanded the search area and brought in more personnel. Everyone who knew Natalie spoke of Paul’s controlling and possessive nature, and the police began to believe that Paul’s refusal to confess or reveal the location of her body might be his final act of control, to keep her with him even in death.
Then, 19 days after Natalie’s disappearance, the police received a crucial emergency call.
“Police emergency call.”
“Yeah, it looks like there’s a body, a dead body, lying next to the road in Chandler’s Cross in some bushes. You can see legs. She, she has none, no clothes on, but it freaked me out. I mean, I don’t know how long it’s been like that. I was just mowing the lawn.”
“I can confirm that officers are on their way. Are you still outside? Okay. If I may ask you to keep an eye out for the officers and simply wave to them, and I will ask them to keep an eye out for you. Okay.”
“OK.”
After almost three weeks of uncertainty, Natalie’s body was finally found. It was discovered in Charlotte’s Cross in Northamptonshire, about 10 miles from her home.
“Okay, we’ll use Nikki as a safety net. Do you have Nikki? Yes. Come on. Everything alright there? Yes. Yes. Okay, bring her all the way in and lower her. Well done.”
“It is probably assumed to be Natalie Henry.”
Tragically, Natalie’s body showed clear signs of violence. She had a fractured right temple, a broken left ulna, and bruising on her right forearm, confirming the brutal nature of the crime. It became painfully clear that Paul’s abusive and controlling nature was the driving force behind Natalie’s tragic fate. Unable to accept the idea that she might find happiness with someone else or leave him, he made the horrifying decision to end her life and ensure she would never escape his grasp.
A jury at Luton Crown Court is deliberating on its verdict in the case of Paul Heming, a man from Milton Keynes, who has pleaded not guilty to murdering his partner Natalie in their home in May. Her body was discovered in a wooded area. Paul Heming’s trial for Natalie Heming’s murder began on October 24, 2016. During the trial, Paul attempted to cover up his crime, claiming it was manslaughter and insisting he had accidentally thrown something at Natalie. However, the evidence told a very different story.
The court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years. Throughout the trial, Paul showed no remorse for his actions. His cold demeanor further underscored the monstrous nature of his crime. Natalie Heming’s tragic story is a chilling reminder of how dangerous control and manipulation can be in a relationship.
She was a loving mother whose life was cruelly taken by someone who should have protected her. Instead, his obsessive need for control and power led him to commit an unspeakable act.
“I’m just so glad we got justice for Nelly and her children. This is the outcome we wanted. This is what we wanted. We wanted him to be angry because…”
What began as emotional abuse escalated into deadly violence, demonstrating just how dangerous uncontrolled toxic behavior can be. Her story underscores the importance of recognizing warning signs and speaking up before it’s too late. This act followed episodes of domestic violence Natalie suffered at Paul’s hands, and his actions have left three children growing up without their mother.
While justice has been served with Paul’s conviction, the pain of Natalie’s loss remains with her family and loved ones. The emotional burden on her friends, family, and especially her young children will be felt for years to come.
“Don’t feel guilty when you laugh. She would know how much you care. Don’t feel sadness when you smile that she isn’t here to share it. Because if you cherish these moments, you will never be separated, and she will live on forever, safely locked in your heart.”
Natalie’s story is a stark and heartbreaking warning about the urgent need to continue fighting domestic violence. It reminds us how crucial it is to encourage those trapped in controlling or harmful relationships to seek help before the cycle ends tragically. Though her life was tragically cut short, her memory stands as a powerful call for change—a reminder that every relationship should be built on kindness, mutual respect, and the freedom to live without fear.
