Still Missing UK - Bernadette Walker, 17, left parent's car, Peterborough, 21 July 2020 *Arrests* #3

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Invisibletotheeye said:
God, I can't bear to think of him getting away on the basis of not enough evidence. It would be a crushing blow for BW :/
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are going to say they were out searching for Bee while they were sitting at Applegreen services pretending to be Bee in text conversations, sitting in Spar carpark ringing her phone in their laps, waiting for her at the lock-up after midnight, prioritising the message that she'd lied and that she "actually" had her phone, dashing to King's Lynn, setting up ludicrous google searches and alibis embedded within texts, making sure to report a stolen thumb print when Bee had been missing for 2 months, only asking Scott where she'd got out of the car 3 days after the fact and still giving non-existent road names...........etc etc etc
 
People (especially on here) are used to seeing men murdering women, it's depressingly common. What's less common is a mother covering up sexual abuse of her daughter and being implicit in her murder to cover up said sexual abuse. (just a thought on the vitriol towards SaW compared to ScW)
 
Tortoise said:
Perhaps they are going to say they were out searching for Bee while they were sitting at Applegreen services pretending to be Bee in text conversations, sitting in Spar carpark ringing her phone in their laps, waiting for her at the lock-up after midnight, prioritising the message that she'd lied and that she "actually" had her phone, dashing to King's Lynn, setting up ludicrous google searches and alibis embedded within texts, making sure to report a stolen thumb print when Bee had been missing for 2 months, only asking Scott where she'd got out of the car 3 days after the fact and still giving non-existent road names...........etc etc etc
Click to expand...
I am sure that there was something in the press nearer the events from SaW about how ScW was out all hours looking for BW, i.e. him not her, as if that showed how concerned he was. I can't find that source.

I hope there's a lot more evidence to come because it's all circumstantial so far and we've not yet heard from the defence. ScW definitely should go down and never be seen again. I only hope we find BW and return her to her loved ones. SaW will be convicted on the two admitted charges, and we can see why she had to plead guilty to those. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will convince the jury that SaW knew at the time that BW was dead and despite knowing that actively participated in further lies to cover it up.
 
Does anyone know if they release documents about cases like they do here in the US? Like how they'll release search warrants or things of that type.
 
CSIAngus said:
I am sure that there was something in the press nearer the events from SaW about how ScW was out all hours looking for BW, i.e. him not her, as if that showed how concerned he was. I can't find that source.

I hope there's a lot more evidence to come because it's all circumstantial so far and we've not yet heard from the defence. ScW definitely should go down and never be seen again. I only hope we find BW and return her to her loved ones. SaW will be convicted on the two admitted charges, and we can see why she had to plead guilty to those. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will convince the jury that SaW knew at the time that BW was dead and despite knowing that actively participated in further lies to cover it up.
Click to expand...
Even just the fact that Sarah didn't correct the name of the road where Bee supposedly ran off in the local press, after the first article stating Skaters Avenue, is in my mind more than enough proof that Sarah did not think Bee had run out of the car and was not desperate for people in the area to check business or private CCTV cameras or dashcams, or appealing to people living in those local streets, out washing their cars, chatting to neighbours in their front gardens, walking their dogs or exercising, or shopping on that Saturday lunchtime to remember back and try to discover where she went next. She had not bothered checking a local map on her phone, or retraced their journey, to see where Bee could have gone. She faked a text saying which friend Bee had gone to stay with. Circumstantial evidence does not equate to weak evidence, in the abundant quantity and quality available, showing no serious strategy to find Bee while patently misdirecting the police and everyone searching for her.

Why would Sarah tell the local paper that Bee might have changed into a black dress and fishnets when she knew that Bee's rucksack was in the car?

Why would Sarah's phone disconnect at the same time as Scott's if she wasn't in the car and didn't say he took her phone? Why hide both their locations?

Even if the police were to find blood in the car boot it would not be proof Sarah knew Bee was dead. Even if someone came forward and said Sarah told them she knew Bee was dead you would not know if that person was telling the truth. The only direct evidence there could be would video evidence of Sarah moving the body. You can only judge by a person's actions whether they stack up to a certain belief. If she knew Bee was dead, and I think there is ample proof of that, or ample proof that after the call from Scott (two hours after they should have been home with no trip to McDonalds) she did not think Bee had run away, which equates to the same thing, within minutes setting up an elaborate lie to help Scott - and knowing that Sarah was angry about the allegations and was more concerned about that than her daughter being dead, immediately faking a text from Bee asking for forgiveness for lying - I think it's obvious that Sarah expected it and did not care a jot that Bee was murdered. She started to cover it up without Scott being in her physical presence. The natural deduction flowing from that is that they both planned it. Joint enterprise, IMO, and I hope the charge is reinstated at some point.
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
Even just the fact that Sarah didn't correct the name of the road where Bee supposedly ran off in the local press, after the first article stating Skaters Avenue, is in my mind more than enough proof that Sarah did not think Bee had run out of the car and was not desperate for people in the area to check business or private CCTV cameras or dashcams, or appealing to people living in those local streets, out washing their cars, chatting to neighbours in their front gardens, walking their dogs or exercising, or shopping on that Saturday lunchtime to remember back and try to discover where she went next. She had not bothered checking a local map on her phone, or retraced their journey, to see where Bee could have gone. Circumstantial evidence does not equate to weak evidence, in the abundant quantity and quality available, showing no serious strategy to find Bee while patently misdirecting the police and everyone searching for her.

Why would Sarah tell the local paper that Bee might have changed into a black dress and fishnets when she knew that Bee's rucksack was in the car?

Why would Sarah's phone disconnect at the same time as Scott's if she wasn't in the car and didn't say he took her phone? Why hide both their locations?

Even if the police were to find blood in the car boot it would not be proof Sarah knew Bee was dead. Even if someone came forward and said Sarah told them she knew Bee was dead you would not know if that person was telling the truth. The only direct evidence there could be would video evidence of Sarah moving the body. You can only judge by a person's actions whether they stack up to a certain belief. If she knew Bee was dead, and I think there is ample proof of that, or ample proof that after the call from Scott (two hours after they should have been home with no trip to McDonalds) she did not think Bee had run away, which equates to the same thing, within minutes setting up an elaborate lie to help Scott - and knowing that Sarah was angry about the allegations and was more concerned about that than her daughter being dead, faking a text from Bee asking for forgiveness for lying - I think it's obvious that Sarah did not care a jot that Bee was murdered. She started to cover it up without Scott being in her physical presence. The natural deduction flowing from that is that they both planned it. Joint enterprise, IMO, and I hope the charge is reinstated at some point.
Click to expand...

this is why she will be found guilty of all four. She is banged to rights already for sending the messages, it’s just too clear without more and more friends coming forward to raise concerns.

now you have to examine the actions and ask does she think the daughter is alive or dead. The fact she’s changed all the passwords, destroyed the phone, set alibis and laid a fake trail of running away is pretty clear.

a child going missing is scary, but to do absolutely nothing for 3 days and have lame excuses to why “oh I don’t speak polish, she needed time to cool off, didn’t she do it before etc” is suspect.

we also know by electronic data she was in communication or present during the windows of opportunity.

yes we don’t have categorical proof, but we already have more than enough to be going with
 
"Warren Naylor had met Bernadette online [...]

Bernadette had confided in Warren, telling him of allegations she had been abused by Scott Walker [...]

On July 19, Mr Naylor received messages from Sarah Walker on Bernadette’s Instagram account, where she told him Bernadette had lied about the allegations. [...]

He said that while initially he thought the messages could have been from Bernadette, he later came to think they were not from Bernadette, but from her mum instead. [...]

When asked about the messages, Mr Naylor said he was ‘shocked’ by them. He said: “She’d never spoken to me like that before.”

Another message he received during the conversation said: “People asking me bare questions.” The court was told the message meant ‘people keep asking me lots of questions.’

Mr Naylor said: “She had never spoken like that before,” saying Bernadette had never used that phrase before in their conversations. [...]

He said he noticed the messages started with a double spacing - something Sarah Walker had used, but Bernadette had not. [...] "

Bernadette Walker Murder Trial: Teenager’s friend suspected messages from Bernadette’s phone were from her mum
 
jackal67 said:
Just noticed a photo on BWs facebook page. The Family excluding ScW and older boys. with Nick Knowles the house renovator bloke.! Can't remember the name of the TV show ? Looks like they have been part of that show !!
Click to expand...

Possibly this programme? Looks like a community build in Peterborough rather than a residential episode so maybe they went along to help / take selfies.
BBC One - DIY SOS, Million Pound Build for Children in Need
 
HollyHunter9 said:
Can witnesses request anonymity? Or for their testimony to not be made public?
Click to expand...
Anonymity orders can be made but I think it would be unusual, especially for two, and quite short witnesses. The press could report it as a witness who can't be identified, or identified only as X.


In the case of Sophie Lionnet for example, the couple on trial for murder of their nanny, the couple's young child gave evidence of what went on in the house.

It was reported as -

"A child described yesterday how he thought he heard an “evil babysitter” being drowned in a bath days before her body was found burning in a suburban garden."

and

"Later, a witness described hearing Miss Lionnet “splashing” and “screaming” in the bathroom with the defendants a couple of days before she was found dead. Kouider allegedly told the witness, who cannot be identified, that she would not let her out of the bath until she “told the truth”. Previously, she had “pushed and slapped” Miss Lionnet, who was afraid that “if she said one word wrong she would get even worse”, the witness said in a videoed interview."

and

"A witness, who cannot be named for legal reasons, heard Ms Lionnet screaming from the bathroom with 'lots of splashing of water' and it seeping under the door."


-------------------------------------------

This is the legislation pertaining to anonymity orders;

Coroners and Justice Act 2009


88Conditions for making order
(1)This section applies where an application is made for a witness anonymity order to be made in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings.

(2)The court may make such an order only if it is satisfied that Conditions A to C below are met.

(3)Condition A is that the proposed order is necessary—

(a)in order to protect the safety of the witness or another person or to prevent any serious damage to property, or

(b)in order to prevent real harm to the public interest (whether affecting the carrying on of any activities in the public interest or the safety of a person involved in carrying on such activities, or otherwise).

(4)Condition B is that, having regard to all the circumstances, the effect of the proposed order would be consistent with the defendant receiving a fair trial.

(5)Condition C is that the importance of the witness's testimony is such that in the interests of justice the witness ought to testify and—

(a)the witness would not testify if the proposed order were not made, or

(b)there would be real harm to the public interest if the witness were to testify without the proposed order being made.

(6)In determining whether the proposed order is necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the court must have regard (in particular) to any reasonable fear on the part of the witness—

(a)that the witness or another person would suffer death or injury, or

(b)that there would be serious damage to property,

if the witness were to be identified.

----------------------------------------------


Also there is this part :-




86Witness anonymity orders
(1)In this Chapter a “witness anonymity order” is an order made by a court that requires such specified measures to be taken in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings as the court considers appropriate to ensure that the identity of the witness is not disclosed in or in connection with the proceedings.

(2)The kinds of measures that may be required to be taken in relation to a witness include measures for securing one or more of the following—

(a)that the witness's name and other identifying details may be—

(i)withheld;

(ii)removed from materials disclosed to any party to the proceedings;

(b)that the witness may use a pseudonym;

(c)that the witness is not asked questions of any specified description that might lead to the identification of the witness;

(d)that the witness is screened to any specified extent;

(e)that the witness's voice is subjected to modulation to any specified extent.

(3)Subsection (2) does not affect the generality of subsection (1).

(4)Nothing in this section authorises the court to require—

(a)the witness to be screened to such an extent that the witness cannot be seen by—

(i)the judge or other members of the court (if any), or

(ii)the jury (if there is one);

(b)the witness's voice to be modulated to such an extent that the witness's natural voice cannot be heard by any persons within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).

(5)In this section “specified” means specified in the witness anonymity order concerned.
 
rls11 said:
Possibly this programme? Looks like a community build in Peterborough rather than a residential episode so maybe they went along to help / take selfies.
BBC One - DIY SOS, Million Pound Build for Children in Need
Click to expand...
Bernadette’s younger sister attended Little Miracles so SaW made numerous cakes for the builders and hers was chosen to be presented to Nick Knowles. However SaW was told to stop making cakes for them - she doesn’t say why but was clearly not happy!
 
MIdge28 said:
Bernadette’s younger sister attended Little Miracles so SaW made numerous cakes for the builders and hers was chosen to be presented to Nick Knowles. However SaW was told to stop making cakes for them - she doesn’t say why but was clearly not happy!
Click to expand...

Link please?
 
Tortoise said:
Even just the fact that Sarah didn't correct the name of the road where Bee supposedly ran off in the local press, after the first article stating Skaters Avenue, is in my mind more than enough proof that Sarah did not think Bee had run out of the car and was not desperate for people in the area to check business or private CCTV cameras or dashcams, or appealing to people living in those local streets, out washing their cars, chatting to neighbours in their front gardens, walking their dogs or exercising, or shopping on that Saturday lunchtime to remember back and try to discover where she went next. She had not bothered checking a local map on her phone, or retraced their journey, to see where Bee could have gone. She faked a text saying which friend Bee had gone to stay with. Circumstantial evidence does not equate to weak evidence, in the abundant quantity and quality available, showing no serious strategy to find Bee while patently misdirecting the police and everyone searching for her.

Why would Sarah tell the local paper that Bee might have changed into a black dress and fishnets when she knew that Bee's rucksack was in the car?

Why would Sarah's phone disconnect at the same time as Scott's if she wasn't in the car and didn't say he took her phone? Why hide both their locations?

Even if the police were to find blood in the car boot it would not be proof Sarah knew Bee was dead. Even if someone came forward and said Sarah told them she knew Bee was dead you would not know if that person was telling the truth. The only direct evidence there could be would video evidence of Sarah moving the body. You can only judge by a person's actions whether they stack up to a certain belief. If she knew Bee was dead, and I think there is ample proof of that, or ample proof that after the call from Scott (two hours after they should have been home with no trip to McDonalds) she did not think Bee had run away, which equates to the same thing, within minutes setting up an elaborate lie to help Scott - and knowing that Sarah was angry about the allegations and was more concerned about that than her daughter being dead, immediately faking a text from Bee asking for forgiveness for lying - I think it's obvious that Sarah expected it and did not care a jot that Bee was murdered. She started to cover it up without Scott being in her physical presence. The natural deduction flowing from that is that they both planned it. Joint enterprise, IMO, and I hope the charge is reinstated at some point.
Click to expand...
Time will tell what the prosecution can prove to the jury beyond reasonable doubt. We have not heard all of their case yet and none of the defence case. I expect SaW's defence will argue that SaW was only complicit in covering up/covering over the sexual abuse allegations, and that she believed at the time that BW had run off, perhaps maintaining that she still believes this. Her defence will argue that if anything ill had become of BW that it was ScW acting alone without her knowledge. Christ knows what ScW's defence counsel will argue other than to try to undermine reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
Anonymity orders can be made but I think it would be unusual, especially for two, and quite short witnesses. The press could report it as a witness who can't be identified, or identified only as X.


In the case of Sophie Lionnet for example, the couple on trial for murder of their nanny, the couple's young child gave evidence of what went on in the house.

It was reported as -

"A child described yesterday how he thought he heard an “evil babysitter” being drowned in a bath days before her body was found burning in a suburban garden."

and

"Later, a witness described hearing Miss Lionnet “splashing” and “screaming” in the bathroom with the defendants a couple of days before she was found dead. Kouider allegedly told the witness, who cannot be identified, that she would not let her out of the bath until she “told the truth”. Previously, she had “pushed and slapped” Miss Lionnet, who was afraid that “if she said one word wrong she would get even worse”, the witness said in a videoed interview."

and

"A witness, who cannot be named for legal reasons, heard Ms Lionnet screaming from the bathroom with 'lots of splashing of water' and it seeping under the door."


-------------------------------------------

This is the legislation pertaining to anonymity orders;

Coroners and Justice Act 2009


88Conditions for making order
(1)This section applies where an application is made for a witness anonymity order to be made in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings.

(2)The court may make such an order only if it is satisfied that Conditions A to C below are met.

(3)Condition A is that the proposed order is necessary—

(a)in order to protect the safety of the witness or another person or to prevent any serious damage to property, or

(b)in order to prevent real harm to the public interest (whether affecting the carrying on of any activities in the public interest or the safety of a person involved in carrying on such activities, or otherwise).

(4)Condition B is that, having regard to all the circumstances, the effect of the proposed order would be consistent with the defendant receiving a fair trial.

(5)Condition C is that the importance of the witness's testimony is such that in the interests of justice the witness ought to testify and—

(a)the witness would not testify if the proposed order were not made, or

(b)there would be real harm to the public interest if the witness were to testify without the proposed order being made.

(6)In determining whether the proposed order is necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the court must have regard (in particular) to any reasonable fear on the part of the witness—

(a)that the witness or another person would suffer death or injury, or

(b)that there would be serious damage to property,

if the witness were to be identified.

----------------------------------------------


Also there is this part :-




86Witness anonymity orders
(1)In this Chapter a “witness anonymity order” is an order made by a court that requires such specified measures to be taken in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings as the court considers appropriate to ensure that the identity of the witness is not disclosed in or in connection with the proceedings.

(2)The kinds of measures that may be required to be taken in relation to a witness include measures for securing one or more of the following—

(a)that the witness's name and other identifying details may be—

(i)withheld;

(ii)removed from materials disclosed to any party to the proceedings;

(b)that the witness may use a pseudonym;

(c)that the witness is not asked questions of any specified description that might lead to the identification of the witness;

(d)that the witness is screened to any specified extent;

(e)that the witness's voice is subjected to modulation to any specified extent.

(3)Subsection (2) does not affect the generality of subsection (1).

(4)Nothing in this section authorises the court to require—

(a)the witness to be screened to such an extent that the witness cannot be seen by—

(i)the judge or other members of the court (if any), or

(ii)the jury (if there is one);

(b)the witness's voice to be modulated to such an extent that the witness's natural voice cannot be heard by any persons within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).

(5)In this section “specified” means specified in the witness anonymity order concerned.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for such an in depth reply. I wasn't sure how it worked. The reporting of the trial has been very limited so I probably think that's why we are only getting limited info re witnesses,etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 2,078 (members: 153, guests: 1,925)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,925
Total visitors
2,078
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,506
Messages
18,188,019
Members
233,404
Latest member
INSCOP
Back
Top