UK UK - Ruth Wilson, 16, Dorking, 27 Nov 1995

[Konstantin]

That road (where she was dropped) is only served by buses every 2 hours or so and they may have been even less frequent in the 90s, so a taxi may have been the easiest/most convenient option, especially if she was meeting someone at a specific time. And the flowers would have cost more than the taxi so it seems that money was not an issue.

It might not have been her money -- if someone helped her plan to run away. It does seem that Ruth had a careful plan to run away.

This is a very good point about the taxi -- she took them for convenience, because there was limited other transport available to her. I did wonder if part of her reason for taking them was that she wanted to be seen to have gone up to Box Hill as part of a plan to make her running away look like a potential suicide. But perhaps she simply wanted to meet someone up there, to be taken somewhere else (meeting them in the centre of Dorking would mean it was more likely someone else would spot them and perhaps identify whoever helped her). But all this is just my speculation as a potential explanation.

 

[Konstantin]

Firstly, you mention quite a bit about the taxi here - I'm wondering how often Ruth travelled by taxi. Buses would have been much cheaper than a taxi, and it seems odd that she would spend this money unnecessarily if she was planning on running away to start a new life. Was Box Hill not very well connected by bus routes at the time?

Perhaps just convenience, as the poster above suggested?

One thing I am curious about, and maybe someone can assist, is WHY the police paid so much attention to Ruth that evening. As a police officer in the UK, I can absolutely guarantee that a 16 year old girl who hasn't gone to school that day and who hasn't turned up at home would not be immediately classed as high risk - bearing in mind Ruth also didn't have a great relationship with her father/stepmother and was a pretty headstrong young woman. In all likelihood, if such as report came into the police nowadays, enquiries would be made but it wouldn't be immediate - it would probably be left until later in the night to see if she returned of her own accord. I feel like something must have been said on that initial report to raise significant concerns and make the police expedite their initial enquiries.

It is interesting. Ruth had run away before, as it came out -- but to friends' homes and not for long -- we don't know if police were called then. I read somewhere--perhaps here--that her dad had gone to one of her male friend's houses that night and asked him where Ruth was. Perhaps when he could not locate her at her friends' homes, her dad realized something bigger had happened and called the police?

We know that:
--Ruth's home life was not as happy as her dad and stepmum portrayed it to be. Her dad was aware she had run away before albeit just to a mate's house. We don't know what else was going on. At least one of her friends has said that Ruth didn't get on with her dad. Her dad must have been aware of that, although he has not wanted to talk about that publicly at all. Her dad has said the family were not aware Ruth had found out the real cause of death of her mum -- maybe this is not true.
-- the police were aware that Ruth's home life was not as happy as her dad and stepmum portrayed it--they have said that they did not publicize this as they didn't think it would help or something to that effect. Maybe they knew it was more than just a normal difficult teenage--parent relationship.

It's also interesting that her parents have not made any public attempts to keep her story in the news and find out what happened to her - which I wonder is because they are pretty sure she "just" ran away and was not abducted.

The police have never upgraded this into a murder enquiry, which they have with other (adult) missing persons -- eg Georgina Gharsallah. Is this because of a lack of any evidence that Ruth was abducted etc, would you say?

 

[mrC]

im not convinced it was ruth who got in that taxi i mean unless the driver actually knew her it would of been easy to make a mistake he hears they are searching Box Hill for a missing girl then he remembers the strange passenger in his cab who he dropped of there and assumes there one and the same the letters found behind the bush could of been written at any time it could be possible that she never went to box hill that night

 

[Konstantin]

Regarding the discussion above about why Surrey Police launched an immediate search for Ruth on the Monday night she was reported missing -- this is what her father, IW, wrote had happened in an open letter published by the Daily Mail in December 2006 (the full article is available at the bottom of this blog post:

You had a Saturday job in a music shop, and were so trustworthy that neighbours queued up to ask you to babysit. In fact, you were so reliable that when you didn’t come home from school that Monday afternoon in November 1995, we assumed we’d forgotten one of your many activities.

It was late at night before the terrible truth dawned. Surrey police swept straight into action.

IW claims that he had not been worried about Ruth until "late at night" -- was the initial search really carried out "late at night"? Would the police not first do the rounds of Ruth's friends and acquaintances to see if she was there? Especially as IW knew she'd run away before? There was another search the next day, right? He does not mention anywhere that he had been aware Ruth had run away before, albeit to her friend's house and that he had gone there to ask the friend if he knew where Ruth was. I wonder what affect he thought that open letter might have on Ruth if she'd run away because of family tensions? Perhaps he really wasn't aware and put Ruth's behaviour down to ordinary "teenage frictions".

 

[Joshw2022]

Perhaps just convenience, as the poster above suggested?



It is interesting. Ruth had run away before, as it came out -- but to friends' homes and not for long -- we don't know if police were called then. I read somewhere--perhaps here--that her dad had gone to one of her male friend's houses that night and asked him where Ruth was. Perhaps when he could not locate her at her friends' homes, her dad realized something bigger had happened and called the police?

We know that:
--Ruth's home life was not as happy as her dad and stepmum portrayed it to be. Her dad was aware she had run away before albeit just to a mate's house. We don't know what else was going on. At least one of her friends has said that Ruth didn't get on with her dad. Her dad must have been aware of that, although he has not wanted to talk about that publicly at all. Her dad has said the family were not aware Ruth had found out the real cause of death of her mum -- maybe this is not true.
-- the police were aware that Ruth's home life was not as happy as her dad and stepmum portrayed it--they have said that they did not publicize this as they didn't think it would help or something to that effect. Maybe they knew it was more than just a normal difficult teenage--parent relationship.

It's also interesting that her parents have not made any public attempts to keep her story in the news and find out what happened to her - which I wonder is because they are pretty sure she "just" ran away and was not abducted.

The police have never upgraded this into a murder enquiry, which they have with other (adult) missing persons -- eg Georgina Gharsallah. Is this because of a lack of any evidence that Ruth was abducted etc, would you say

Regarding the discussion above about why Surrey Police launched an immediate search for Ruth on the Monday night she was reported missing -- this is what her father, IW, wrote had happened in an open letter published by the Daily Mail in December 2006 (the full article is available at the bottom of this blog post:

You had a Saturday job in a music shop, and were so trustworthy that neighbours queued up to ask you to babysit. In fact, you were so reliable that when you didn’t come home from school that Monday afternoon in November 1995, we assumed we’d forgotten one of your many activities.

It was late at night before the terrible truth dawned. Surrey police swept straight into action.

IW claims that he had not been worried about Ruth until "late at night" -- was the initial search really carried out "late at night"? Would the police not first do the rounds of Ruth's friends and acquaintances to see if she was there? Especially as IW knew she'd run away before? There was another search the next day, right? He does not mention anywhere that he had been aware Ruth had run away before, albeit to her friend's house and that he had gone there to ask the friend if he knew where Ruth was. I wonder what affect he thought that open letter might have on Ruth if she'd run away because of family tensions? Perhaps he really wasn't aware and put Ruth's behaviour down to ordinary "teenage frictions".

Hi Konstantin - to make it easier I'll reply to both of your posts separately.

I've always found the family's response very odd in relation to this case. That doesn't mean for a second that I find it suspicious, but it's odd. Many families choose to keep their child's case in the press as much as possible, but in this case they don't. The family haven't engaged with documentaries or books etc., which I understand to some extent, but it does mean there is very little publicity about the case. As you say, I think it's probably because they think she 'just' ran away, which misses the point that she almost certainly came to harm even if she did 'just' run away.

In terms of the police investigation, it's not unusual for a case not to be upgraded to murder. Whilst it happens in many cases, in lots of others it doesn't. The only real reasons for doing this would be:
1 - If there is obvious evidence/intelligence to suggest the missing person has been murdered.
2 - To release more resources. It depends on the force, but for example where I work high profile/serious missing person cases are handled by the individual district CID team. The resources they have access to would be relatively minimal. However, by upgrading the case to murder this would generally mean the case would be passed to the force's Murder Enquiry Team (or whatever the force calls them). In doing so, the investigation would have access to many more specialist detectives and resources. There would still need to be some indication that the person is likely deceased (not through their own actions) in order for this to happen.

In this particular case, I don't think it makes sense for the police to upgrade it to murder for the following reasons:
1 - There were suicide notes and pills/alcohol found at the scene. We don't know the content of the notes or whether they were some sort of false lead planted by Ruth (or someone else), which I suspect they were. Even so, the fact is that it's plausible she could have taken her own life and the police may have made this assessment based on the content of the notes.

2 - There was no indication that she had come to serious harm at the hands of a 3rd party (i.e. blood at the scene).

3 - Ruth had a history of running away and had made veiled comments to friends about this as well. It is plausible that she chose to run away.

4 - We know she struggled with her home life, and had found out the information re her mother's death - this is a significant life event which likely caused her distress and could have led to her taking her own life.

5 - By far the biggest reason...there is no publicity. The police will have enough ongoing cases to manage and investigate. This is an almost 30 year old case in which there is no appetite from the family for a public campaign or similar. At the risk of sounding harsh, it is both easier and more efficient for the police to simply put out an appeal every few years and see if anything comes to light, as opposed to launching a full scale murder investigation.

Hope the above answers your question!

 

[Joshw2022]

Regarding the discussion above about why Surrey Police launched an immediate search for Ruth on the Monday night she was reported missing -- this is what her father, IW, wrote had happened in an open letter published by the Daily Mail in December 2006 (the full article is available at the bottom of this blog post:

You had a Saturday job in a music shop, and were so trustworthy that neighbours queued up to ask you to babysit. In fact, you were so reliable that when you didn’t come home from school that Monday afternoon in November 1995, we assumed we’d forgotten one of your many activities.

It was late at night before the terrible truth dawned. Surrey police swept straight into action.

IW claims that he had not been worried about Ruth until "late at night" -- was the initial search really carried out "late at night"? Would the police not first do the rounds of Ruth's friends and acquaintances to see if she was there? Especially as IW knew she'd run away before? There was another search the next day, right? He does not mention anywhere that he had been aware Ruth had run away before, albeit to her friend's house and that he had gone there to ask the friend if he knew where Ruth was. I wonder what affect he thought that open letter might have on Ruth if she'd run away because of family tensions? Perhaps he really wasn't aware and put Ruth's behaviour down to ordinary "teenage frictions".

I have read IW's open letter previously. One of the things that strikes me is the line you're highlighted above:

It was late at night before the terrible truth dawned. Surrey police swept straight into action.

I don't understand why the police would immediately take the case so seriously. Yes, she as a child, but she had been missing before (whether reported to the police or not). She was also 16 years old - yes, a child, but old enough to live by herself if she wanted to. One of the first things the police would do is contact Ruth's friends/family and see if anybody had seen her, as well as checking spots she would like to frequent. I appreciate this was almost 30 years ago, but I would imagine the processes are similar. What the police would NOT do is immediately start searching with helicopters and dogs without a very significant concern for Ruth's safety. I work on missing persons investigations on a relatively regular basis, and I can count on one hand the number I've been involved with in the last 12 months where specialist resources such as dogs/helicopters have been involved...it just doesn't happen unless there is an absolutely massive concern (or unless there's a huge area to search that cannot be done effectively on foot...but, again, there has to be a significant concern).

It could be something as simple as the police accidentally coming across the information about her going to the woods (which would increase concern if the family stated she had been feeling down)...i.e. they come across the taxi driver by chance and he provides the information. But that is purely speculation on my part. The fact remains, there must have been some extremely concerning information available to the police that evening for them to start searching in the manner they allegedly did.

Just one last point, I think the letter from IW very clearly suggests that he thinks Ruth ran away. There is absolutely no reference, not even a line, to any potential suspect asking them to come forwards if they have any information or to clear their conscience etc. To me, that is quite significant.

 

[mrC]

roxy birch played ruth in the police reconstruction thats means at the time she must of looked a tiny bit like Ruth so im wondering if some of the sightings of ruth are actually sightings off roxy

 

[Konstantin]

I have read IW's open letter previously. One of the things that strikes me is the line you're highlighted above:

It was late at night before the terrible truth dawned. Surrey police swept straight into action.

I don't understand why the police would immediately take the case so seriously. Yes, she as a child, but she had been missing before (whether reported to the police or not). She was also 16 years old - yes, a child, but old enough to live by herself if she wanted to. One of the first things the police would do is contact Ruth's friends/family and see if anybody had seen her, as well as checking spots she would like to frequent. I appreciate this was almost 30 years ago, but I would imagine the processes are similar. What the police would NOT do is immediately start searching with helicopters and dogs without a very significant concern for Ruth's safety. I work on missing persons investigations on a relatively regular basis, and I can count on one hand the number I've been involved with in the last 12 months where specialist resources such as dogs/helicopters have been involved...it just doesn't happen unless there is an absolutely massive concern (or unless there's a huge area to search that cannot be done effectively on foot...but, again, there has to be a significant concern).

It could be something as simple as the police accidentally coming across the information about her going to the woods (which would increase concern if the family stated she had been feeling down)...i.e. they come across the taxi driver by chance and he provides the information. But that is purely speculation on my part. The fact remains, there must have been some extremely concerning information available to the police that evening for them to start searching in the manner they allegedly did.

Just one last point, I think the letter from IW very clearly suggests that he thinks Ruth ran away. There is absolutely no reference, not even a line, to any potential suspect asking them to come forwards if they have any information or to clear their conscience etc. To me, that is quite significant.

Thank you for this and your previous reply--really helpful and informative, lots of interesting background that I did not have knowledge about!

Yes I agree with your assessment about IW's letter--in fact I don't think he ever appealed for a potential abductor to come forward. Even though the information available does suggest that Ruth ran away, she could certainly have come to harm as a result of or after her doing so (I have read Shelley MacKenney's autobiography about her time as a missing person after she ran away from London to Birmingham. She was in her early 20s, so rather older than Ruth, and her family didn't inform the police as they were something of a crime family--one reason she ran. But even being older, very intelligent, and street smart, Shelley describes how vulnerable she was as a runaway, how much unwanted and quite frightening attention she got from men as a runaway, some risky things she had to do to survive, and one incident where someone abducted her in a car after drugging her, and she managed to escape only because of some street survival techniques her dad taught her. Ruth would have been far, far more vulnerable than Shelley was, even if she had help to run away, which I can't help but think she probably did.)

I also wonder why IW didn't want to engage with Martin Bright's documentary to bring Ruth's case into the public eye. Martin is a professional journalist and very sympathetic. My guess is a combination of IW believing for whatever reason that Ruth ran away and doesn't want to come home / be found (he did think it was Ruth in the CCTV from the newsagents a year after she went missing, and him not wanting to attract negative attention to himself and the family by talking about Ruth being unhappy. Which he must have known. It must have been terrible for him when Ruth's mum took her own life.

 

[Joshw2022]

Thank you for this and your previous reply--really helpful and informative, lots of interesting background that I did not have knowledge about!

Yes I agree with your assessment about IW's letter--in fact I don't think he ever appealed for a potential abductor to come forward. Even though the information available does suggest that Ruth ran away, she could certainly have come to harm as a result of or after her doing so (I have read Shelley MacKenney's autobiography about her time as a missing person after she ran away from London to Birmingham. She was in her early 20s, so rather older than Ruth, and her family didn't inform the police as they were something of a crime family--one reason she ran. But even being older, very intelligent, and street smart, Shelley describes how vulnerable she was as a runaway, how much unwanted and quite frightening attention she got from men as a runaway, some risky things she had to do to survive, and one incident where someone abducted her in a car after drugging her, and she managed to escape only because of some street survival techniques her dad taught her. Ruth would have been far, far more vulnerable than Shelley was, even if she had help to run away, which I can't help but think she probably did.)

I also wonder why IW didn't want to engage with Martin Bright's documentary to bring Ruth's case into the public eye. Martin is a professional journalist and very sympathetic. My guess is a combination of IW believing for whatever reason that Ruth ran away and doesn't want to come home / be found (he did think it was Ruth in the CCTV from the newsagents a year after she went missing, and him not wanting to attract negative attention to himself and the family by talking about Ruth being unhappy. Which he must have known. It must have been terrible for him when Ruth's mum took her own life.

Not a problem! Im more than happy to answer questions anytime on police procedure and how things work etc!

I think the idea that Ruth ran away and subsequently came to harm is highly likely. She would have been extremely vulnerable, both by virtue of her age but also because she lived a somewhat sheltered existence. It would have been easy for somebody to take advantage of her, whether by harming her physically or trafficking her etc.

I think the reason IW didn't want to engage is, as you say, because he was scared of the backlash he might receive or the further intrusion into his personal life. The thing is, at this point I think it's well passed that. It's nearly 30 years ago. A little publicity would potentially being about more leads and/or at least push the police into reviewing the case.

 

[Konstantin]

Not a problem! Im more than happy to answer questions anytime on police procedure and how things work etc!

I think the idea that Ruth ran away and subsequently came to harm is highly likely. She would have been extremely vulnerable, both by virtue of her age but also because she lived a somewhat sheltered existence. It would have been easy for somebody to take advantage of her, whether by harming her physically or trafficking her etc.

I think the reason IW didn't want to engage is, as you say, because he was scared of the backlash he might receive or the further intrusion into his personal life. The thing is, at this point I think it's well passed that. It's nearly 30 years ago. A little publicity would potentially being about more leads and/or at least push the police into reviewing the case.

That's awesome, thank you

And it does seem plausible that someone could have helped her. IW and Ruth's stepmum also became convinced that the distressed young woman caught on CCTV in a newsagent a year after Ruth disappeared was her. If so, why not do more to try to have her found?

I think that if IW had engaged with Martin Bright, who has a lot of clout and reach in the media, and obviously is willing to do whatever he can to help, the story could have gone further and produced more new insights. It is a shame he feels he cannot do that.

 

[Joshw2022]

That's awesome, thank you

And it does seem plausible that someone could have helped her. IW and Ruth's stepmum also became convinced that the distressed young woman caught on CCTV in a newsagent a year after Ruth disappeared was her. If so, why not do more to try to have her found?

I think that if IW had engaged with Martin Bright, who has a lot of clout and reach in the media, and obviously is willing to do whatever he can to help, the story could have gone further and produced more new insights. It is a shame he feels he cannot do that.

I've always found the CCTV sighting interesting. The CCTV still that has been released is poor (grainy due to the time, but also the person isn't looking at the camera). I don't personally think it is Ruth, but that's just me. I would be interested to see the full video and understand why the family believe it to be her.

 

[Konstantin]

I've always found the CCTV sighting interesting. The CCTV still that has been released is poor (grainy due to the time, but also the person isn't looking at the camera). I don't personally think it is Ruth, but that's just me. I would be interested to see the full video and understand why the family believe it to be her.

It's so frustrating that the video was on the BBC website, but it does not work now because it is old technology. I wonder if the BBC still have it in an archive and could repost it somehow?

The girl on the CCTV was behaving strangely enough for the newsagent to call the police afterwards. Initially IW and Ruth's stepmother didn't believe it was Ruth. I would also be interested to know why they changed their minds. If they thought it was her, distressed as she looked at newspapers presumably to see if an appeal for her on the anniversary of her disappearance was reported in them, why didn't they immediately reach out and appeal? Surely the media would have published that locally and even nationally? The BBC was interested enough to run the story with the CCTV.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Thanks alb1on - I'm not familiar with the area so I'm unsure how far she would have had to travel in a taxi (I do plan on visiting the area soon), but I find it interesting that money seemingly wasn't a major issue for her if she was planning on running away and starting up a new life. Also, I presume that as far as we know the contents of any notes that were left have never been revealed?

I do find it frustrating with these types of cases in the UK. Even with cases that have been cold for decades the police never seem to reveal much information beyond the very basics, which I understand, but once it becomes clear that the case is not going to be solved it surely makes sense to put more information in the public domain. And I say this as a police officer!!

The father and step-mother need to want to have this cold case brought to the fore but apparently they don't want to.

 

[Officer Dibble]

I've always found the CCTV sighting interesting. The CCTV still that has been released is poor (grainy due to the time, but also the person isn't looking at the camera). I don't personally think it is Ruth, but that's just me. I would be interested to see the full video and understand why the family believe it to be her.

Or for what reason they might want to say they believe it's Ruth. JMO MOO

 

[Officer Dibble]

im not convinced it was ruth who got in that taxi i mean unless the driver actually knew her it would of been easy to make a mistake he hears they are searching Box Hill for a missing girl then he remembers the strange passenger in his cab who he dropped of there and assumes there one and the same the letters found behind the bush could of been written at any time it could be possible that she never went to box hill that night

I doubt many people pick up someone from the library and take them up to Box Hill. JMO

 

[alb1on]

I've always found the CCTV sighting interesting. The CCTV still that has been released is poor (grainy due to the time, but also the person isn't looking at the camera). I don't personally think it is Ruth, but that's just me. I would be interested to see the full video and understand why the family believe it to be her.

I agree with you that it is most likely not Ruth in the video and have said this before. My reason is simply my knowledge of Dorking, living only 10 miles away. It is a small town where it would be almost impossible to remain in the area and avoid being spotted. And if visiting the chance of bumping into people you know is much higher than in a larger place. The one thing I have not seen is whether the newsagent was in the high street area (which should have had other possible cctv or security camera coverage) or in one of the residential areas (where that would be unlikely). I assume the latter since only the one image seems to have been available but, if that is the case I cannot imagine why Ruth would be in the residential areas of Dorking I know, unless she was there visiting someone. She would also need to pass through the high street from the station, if visiting, in order to get to many of the residential areas - increasing the risk of detection. All seems to me to point to the video being mistaken identity.

 

[Konstantin]

I agree with you that it is most likely not Ruth in the video and have said this before. My reason is simply my knowledge of Dorking, living only 10 miles away. It is a small town where it would be almost impossible to remain in the area and avoid being spotted. And if visiting the chance of bumping into people you know is much higher than in a larger place. The one thing I have not seen is whether the newsagent was in the high street area (which should have had other possible cctv or security camera coverage) or in one of the residential areas (where that would be unlikely). I assume the latter since only the one image seems to have been available but, if that is the case I cannot imagine why Ruth would be in the residential areas of Dorking I know, unless she was there visiting someone. She would also need to pass through the high street from the station, if visiting, in order to get to many of the residential areas - increasing the risk of detection. All seems to me to point to the video being mistaken identity.

This is a really interesting take, thank you. The police said that there were "reliable sightings of Ruth in the Dorking area in the days after she went missing" but did not elaborate on that. But the newsagents CCTV was a year later. So Ruth would have had to have lain low for a year before coming back to Dorking.

I think the hypothesis was that, if it were Ruth in the newsagents, she had returned on the anniversary of her disappearance to check what had been written, if anything, in the local papers (that was an explanation for the young woman in the video asking for local papers and becoming distressed when one was not available). But that is only a "just so story" that tries to explain this scenario. It would be odd for Ruth to come back to Dorking where as you say she would run the risk of being seen, unless she wanted to be seen, but then if it was her she disappeared again.

There must be a whole lot to the story of Ruth and her disappearance that we don't know about. Perhaps her dad had his own ideas why he thought it was her in the CCTV, maybe wishful thinking. The whole thing is very strange.

 

[alb1on]

I have to say that I see little that is odd in this appeal. Do not forget that he is a teacher (so likely to be pedantic in his use of language) and that the appeal was almost certainly passed through other hands, including the police, and finessed to use their input. Public appeals usually come across as somewhat stilted in their use of language and this is no exception. That does not make it either surprising or having any clear implications for the case. Assuming it went through the hands of Surrey Police I am only surprised it does not read as translated from Chinese, having seen many of their statements in the local media.

Edit; apologies, I made this reply to the wrong post but I think the comments are self explanatory.

 

[mrC]

ruth stay with ben was at roughly at the same time she split up with her boyfriend i can't help wondering i the 2 things are related

 

[GaHAu]

I have read elsewhere that Ruth travelled to London by herself to find a copy of her mother's death certificate. So sad for a 16 year old to find out that her mother's cause of death was hanging rather than a fall down the stairs. Whatever prompted Ruth to search for the truth, she must have felt very alone. Were there any televised appeals for Ruth to let the police know she was safe after the family thought that she had been seen on the village shop's CCTV footage a year after she vanished?