Obsessed British Airbnb guest brutally killed his host after he became infatuated with her – then torched the home and mum-of-three’s body beyond all recognition
An Englishman with an "obsession" for his Australian Airbnb host has been found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder, after killing her and setting fire to her home with her body inside. Timothy Loosemore, 62, killed surveyor Maree Vermont, 60, at her self-built home in rural Victoria in August 2023, but the severity of the fire meant forensic experts could not determine her exact cause of death, leaving two separate juries unable to convict him of murder. The case matters because it shows how destroying evidence through arson can complicate prosecutors' ability to prove intent, even amid strong signs of a violent struggle.
Prosecutors said Loosemore, who had stayed on and off at Ms Vermont's home near Melbourne since March 2023 after a brief sexual relationship soured, "snapped" when she repeatedly rejected him, attacking her before setting the house alight to cover it up. Her blood was found on his clothing, he bore scratches to his face and neck consistent with her fighting back, and her body was discovered face down near three kitchen knives, despite five accessible exits she never used. Forensic tests found no soot in her airways and no carbon monoxide in her blood, suggesting she was likely already dead when the fire, apparently accelerated with petrol, was started. Loosemore has now been convicted of manslaughter following his second trial and faces a pre-sentence hearing.
- British man convicted of manslaughter, not murder, over Airbnb host's death
- Fire damage stopped experts confirming cause of death
- Prosecutors say he attacked her after being rejected, then torched the house
New here? Start with this
Timothy Loosemore, a 62-year-old Englishman, had been staying on and off at the rural Victoria home of his Airbnb host, Maree Vermont, a 60-year-old surveyor and mother of three, after a brief sexual relationship between them ended. Prosecutors said he grew fixated on her and turned violent when she rejected him, killing her at the house she had built herself and then setting it alight, badly burning her body in the process.
Because the fire destroyed so much evidence, forensic experts could not establish exactly how Ms Vermont died, which made it hard for prosecutors to prove Loosemore intended to kill her. This meant two separate juries were unable to convict him of murder, despite evidence including her blood on his clothing and scratches on his face and neck.
The case has drawn attention both for the disturbing nature of the crime and for what it reveals about the limits of forensic science when evidence is deliberately destroyed. Loosemore was convicted of manslaughter at his second trial and now awaits sentencing.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who see the manslaughter verdict as the right outcome argue that the justice system exists precisely to prevent murder convictions without proof beyond reasonable doubt, however strong the suspicion. They contend that once the fire destroyed the forensic evidence needed to establish exactly how and when Ms Vermont died, jurors were correct not to speculate about intent, since the presumption of innocence protects everyone, including those accused of dreadful crimes. To convict of murder on inference rather than certainty, on this view, would weaken a safeguard that matters most in the hardest cases.
The case against
Others find the outcome troubling, arguing that it risks rewarding an offender for the thoroughness with which he destroyed the evidence of his own crime, since the very act of burning the house and body is what created the doubt over cause of death. They point to the weight of circumstantial evidence, her blood on his clothing, defensive scratches, her body found near knives despite accessible exits, and signs she was already dead before the blaze, as together painting a clear picture of an intentional killing. On this view, requiring near-certain proof of intent when evidence has been deliberately destroyed leaves victims and their families without full acknowledgement of what was truly done to them.