More than a week after Ann Widdecombe was found dead inside her isolated Devon home, the family of the 28-year-old man arrested in connection with her killing has broken its silence.

Their description of the suspect could hardly be further removed from the brutal crime being investigated.

Relatives and neighbours portray him as shy, withdrawn and “quiet and unassuming”—a man who reportedly lived alone in his late father’s council house and was rarely seen outside.

His uncle said he was physically shaken when he learned about the arrest, insisting his nephew was the last person he would have imagined becoming involved in such a case.

But one sentence has attracted particular attention:

“Things don’t add up.”

The family revelation behind those words

According to relatives, the suspect’s behaviour changed after the sudden death of his father several months ago.

The pair had shared a house on a council estate in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. Following his father’s death, the 28-year-old reportedly became even more isolated and rarely left the property.

An aunt described the bereavement as a major emotional setback. Other people who knew him recalled a reserved individual who largely kept to himself.

To the family, this private and apparently unassuming personality seems impossible to reconcile with the man police suspect of travelling hundreds of miles before a planned attack.

Their disbelief is understandable—but it is important to be precise. These descriptions are not an alibi, forensic evidence or a verified clue pointing investigators towards another person. They are character accounts from relatives trying to understand an arrest that has left them stunned. The Observer

Police have released more than just details of an arrest

Contrary to claims that investigators have disclosed nothing beyond the detention of a suspect, the case has changed significantly since the initial arrest.

Ann Widdecombe, 78, was found dead at her bungalow in Haytor Vale at approximately 11.40am on Thursday, July 9. She had suffered serious injuries.

Police believe she was attacked at about 12.30pm the previous day. Shortly beforehand, she had communicated with television producers about a scheduled Channel 5 appearance. Her final message was sent at 12.19pm, but she failed to join the programme and did not respond to subsequent calls.

A 28-year-old man was arrested in Rotherham on July 11 on suspicion of murder. After additional evidence emerged, he was rearrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

At the time of reporting, he remained in custody and had not been charged. He is therefore a suspect, not a convicted or formally proven offender.

Police confirm evidence of planning

Counter-terrorism police have called Widdecombe’s death a “targeted attack”.

Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor confirmed that investigators had uncovered indications of preparation and planning, although he declined to reveal their nature. Digital devices and other material are being examined while officers attempt to establish the motive.

Police are also investigating whether other Reform UK figures could have been at risk. Possible political motivation—including left-wing extremism—is one line of inquiry, but authorities have stressed that no definitive motive has been established.

They have neither confirmed that Widdecombe was killed because of her politics nor concluded that further politicians were definitely targeted. ITV News

This distinction matters. A line of inquiry is a possibility being tested, not a conclusion.

Does the suspect’s bereavement change the investigation?

The death of the suspect’s father may help investigators understand his circumstances before the alleged attack. Detectives could examine whether his routines, mental state, communications or movements changed during that period.

But bereavement alone neither proves nor disproves involvement in a crime.

Likewise, being described as quiet or shy does not contradict physical, digital or forensic evidence. Many criminal investigations involve a sharp difference between how relatives perceived a suspect and what investigators later allege occurred.

The family’s account therefore adds human context—but does not, on its own, point the investigation in a “completely different direction”.

The decisive questions remain far more concrete:

• Where was the suspect at the relevant time?
• What do CCTV, telephone and vehicle records show?
• What planning material did officers discover?
• Is there forensic evidence connecting him to Widdecombe’s home?
• What, if any, motive can be established?

Police have not publicly answered those questions.

The dramatic reversal that fuelled confusion

Public confusion has also been intensified by the investigation’s rapid change of direction.

Devon and Cornwall Police initially said there was no information suggesting terrorism or political motivation. Counter-terrorism officers subsequently took control after new evidence came to light, and the attack was then described as targeted.

That reversal prompted criticism of the force’s early public statements. However, an initial assessment changing when new evidence emerges does not necessarily mean investigators misled the public.

It can also reflect the normal development of a complex inquiry.

Counter-terrorism police have stressed that the murder and terrorism investigations are proceeding in parallel. This means officers are investigating both Widdecombe’s killing and whether the preparation or motivation could meet the legal threshold for a terrorism offence.

Nigel Farage faces criticism over confidential briefings

The investigation has also become entangled in a political argument involving Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Farage was criticised after discussing information reportedly given to him during telephone briefings with senior police and Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Former home secretary Jack Straw argued that confidential briefings should remain confidential and accused Farage of trying to keep himself at the centre of the story.

Former senior police figures also questioned whether disclosing details could make officers less willing to provide private updates in future.

Farage and Reform UK, meanwhile, raised concerns about the security of politicians and criticised the initial suggestion that the killing was not political. The later involvement of counter-terrorism officers intensified that dispute.

Yet none of the political arguments establishes why Widdecombe was killed. That remains a question for evidence, not public speculation.

What happens next?

Investigators must either charge the 28-year-old man, obtain any further lawful extension required to continue questioning him, or release him.

Until a charging decision is announced, the presumption of innocence applies.

The family’s words will undoubtedly fuel discussion because they expose the unsettling contrast at the heart of the case: relatives remember a reclusive, quiet man, while detectives are investigating evidence of a targeted and apparently planned attack.

For now, those two pictures appear irreconcilable.

But the relatives’ disbelief is not the mysterious clue that solves the case. The real answers are likely to lie in the evidence police have not yet made public—and in what they decide to do when the custody deadline arrives. Associated Press