@Legally Bland thank you for all those archived news reports. It's so useful to get the background.
One thing I find a bit strange in all this is that Peter's mother and older brother only moved to Germany in the February of 2001, three months before Louise and Peter went over. The reason stated was to start a new life following his acquittal yet he was acquitted eight years earlier. It sounds as if there were still pressures on the mother resulting from his trial and the acquittal hadn't provided closure, with the continued suspicion of authority even in her native Germany. Was it really a choice to move with her 42 year old son, or was it more like this is what they were going to have to do now if they wanted to live in peace? I suppose what I'm picking up on is that it didn't end for her with the acquittal, she didn't view it as an acquittal, otherwise she wouldn't have made the link between that happening eight years earlier and how police would view Louise not boarding the ferry back to England. It seems as if she herself within a couple of weeks of Louise's failure to arrive home had already ruled out the possibility that it was Louise's choice. Through her decision not to report it she already wasn't viewing this as a search for a missing young woman who was lost and didn't have the language skills and means to be safely travelling around. That is revealing I think, and also her assumption that suspicion would fall their way and not on what happened to Louise when she was on her way to Ostend.
"
We are all very upset. I looked after Louise like a daughter, fed her, did her washing. I would hate to see any harm come to her."
It's an odd statement. What the mother did ('feeding' and washing) has no bearing on the appeal to find where Louise went. It almost sounds like she resented doing the work, the impression of being a caring motherly figure was more important than the fact of Louise being missing, she was in need of gratitude, and I think it's unusual for a 24 year old trainee nurse to not be helping with the cooking and doing her own washing. Is it a financial thing "fed her" ? It does sound as if she was looking after a primary school age child, or as if Louise was incapacitated. The last statement about harm is not only put into future tense which seems unnatural, given that she's missing and it skirts around the issue that harm is unlikely to be ahead of her but behind her, it sticks out because why would someone in a mothering role say 'I would hate to see any harm come to her?' That seems like a given to me. The tense seems to emphasise her avoidance of mentioning harm in a past tense scenario. The natural thing to say would be 'I hope she hasn't come to any harm'.
Long story short, I think she has knowledge of what happened.
Perhaps Peter wanted to move to Germany too, to be with his mother and brother. Perhaps he was financially or otherwise dependent on her, not having to pay rent for example, or paying a reduced rent, or she might have wanted to sell the house in Kent to cut ties with England, in which case Peter and Louise might have to support themselves. Maybe Louise didn't like it there and that caused some friction or arguments. It would be especially difficult for her not speaking any German, very hard to get a job, but it does sound as if the invitation to Germany might have been a holiday with some added expectations, and had the potential to make or break. It doesn't sound as if Louise was happy there, and I'm sure I've not read any references to anyone seeing Louise with Peter, as if they weren't seen out as a couple in those 5 weeks. Maybe I missed them.
MOO
Serious side eye going on here, only the BF came back to Kent!
