Still Missing UK - Bernadette Walker, 17, left parent's car, Peterborough, 21 July 2020 *Arrests* #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's interesting to see the sequence unfold -


19th July - Sarah wrote "If I thought for one minute it’s true, her dad wouldn’t be here.”

22nd July - the day after reporting Bee missing - Sarah told police that Bee had admitted lying.

9th Sep - three days before her arrest - Sarah told police she didn't believe Bee's allegations against Scott.

10th Sep to 12th Sep - between Scott's arrest and her own arrest - with Scott in police custody Sarah still didn't make any disclosure to police about him threatening her or harming the children, or thinking Bee hadn't run away.

12th Sep - after her arrest - Sarah said Bee's allegations didn't add up because she knew Scott had broken his phone, and she also said she'd received texts from Bee after her disappearance saying she'd be home soon.

Then later she said ScW was terrified of going to prison, he'd forced her to send the texts, he'd seriously physically assaulted a boy and a baby, and made threats to kill her, her boyfriend and the dog, yet she hadn't believed he could have sexually assaulted Bee.

She then said "I'm sure at that point I still believed she'd ran off." That point being when she sent the messages. So after that she did not believe she'd run off. It's an unreliable admission (imo) because firstly she says "I'm sure", still leaving open the option of admitting she knew straight away depending on what evidence they show her, and secondly she hasn't given a turning point for when she stopped believing she'd run off, and lastly she's lied about what she believed between the beginning and the end of her post-arrest interview.

Saying she now doesn't believe Bee ran off doesn't bode well for continuing the defence that she doesn't believe Scott murdered Bee.

Neither does this line "I think he might have hurt her now...I don't want her to be dead, I don't want to accept that."
 
Tortoise said:
It's interesting to see the sequence unfold -


19th July - Sarah wrote "If I thought for one minute it’s true, her dad wouldn’t be here.”

22nd July - the day after reporting Bee missing - Sarah told police that Bee had admitted lying.

9th Sep - three days before her arrest - Sarah told police she didn't believe Bee's allegations against Scott.

10th Sep to 12th Sep - between Scott's arrest and her own arrest - with Scott in police custody Sarah still didn't make any disclosure to police about him threatening her or harming the children, or thinking Bee hadn't run away.

12th Sep - after her arrest - Sarah said Bee's allegations didn't add up because she knew Scott had broken his phone, and she also said she'd received texts from Bee after her disappearance saying she'd be home soon.

Then later she said ScW was terrified of going to prison, he'd forced her to send the texts, he'd seriously physically assaulted a boy and a baby, and made threats to kill her, her boyfriend and the dog, yet she hadn't believed he could have sexually assaulted Bee.

She then said "I'm sure at that point I still believed she'd ran off." That point being when she sent the messages. So after that she did not believe she'd run off. It's an unreliable admission (imo) because firstly she says "I'm sure", still leaving open the option of admitting she knew straight away depending on what evidence they show her, and secondly she hasn't given a turning point for when she stopped believing she'd run off, and lastly she's lied about what she believed between the beginning and the end of her post-arrest interview.

Saying she now doesn't believe Bee ran off doesn't bode well for continuing the defence that she doesn't believe Scott murdered Bee.

Neither does this line "I think he might have hurt her now...I don't want her to be dead, I don't want to accept that."
Click to expand...
Interesting. She is contradicting herself and probably more so in the interviews. At what point did she stop believing BW had ran off? The defence came out strongly to say that they "do not accept or concede" that BW is dead. That was both teams according to this source. Mr Cohen said: “If she was not dead, she could not have been murdered.”
 
So the Defence case has started and either Scott or Sarah are giving evidence - very frustrating that we are not getting any coverage


Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:52
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:05
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:25
Trial (Part Heard) - Defendant Sworn - 11:45

Cambridge Crown Court 1

T20207197
sarah walker
scott walker
 
Tortoise said:
It's interesting to see the sequence unfold -


19th July - Sarah wrote "If I thought for one minute it’s true, her dad wouldn’t be here.”

22nd July - the day after reporting Bee missing - Sarah told police that Bee had admitted lying.

9th Sep - three days before her arrest - Sarah told police she didn't believe Bee's allegations against Scott.

10th Sep to 12th Sep - between Scott's arrest and her own arrest - with Scott in police custody Sarah still didn't make any disclosure to police about him threatening her or harming the children, or thinking Bee hadn't run away.

12th Sep - after her arrest - Sarah said Bee's allegations didn't add up because she knew Scott had broken his phone, and she also said she'd received texts from Bee after her disappearance saying she'd be home soon.

Then later she said ScW was terrified of going to prison, he'd forced her to send the texts, he'd seriously physically assaulted a boy and a baby, and made threats to kill her, her boyfriend and the dog, yet she hadn't believed he could have sexually assaulted Bee.

She then said "I'm sure at that point I still believed she'd ran off." That point being when she sent the messages. So after that she did not believe she'd run off. It's an unreliable admission (imo) because firstly she says "I'm sure", still leaving open the option of admitting she knew straight away depending on what evidence they show her, and secondly she hasn't given a turning point for when she stopped believing she'd run off, and lastly she's lied about what she believed between the beginning and the end of her post-arrest interview.

Saying she now doesn't believe Bee ran off doesn't bode well for continuing the defence that she doesn't believe Scott murdered Bee.

Neither does this line "I think he might have hurt her now...I don't want her to be dead, I don't want to accept that."
Click to expand...

I wish the prosecution read your post out loud to the jury! They should point out all the contradicting statements, how the timeline all points to her not running away.
MOO
 
My opinion only, but the only "turning point" Sarah experienced, was when she realised she would not be able to return back to her life as she knew it, and that the game of faking a happy family was over.
And therefor, she could speak about Scott's madness that she had been covering up for fear of social care.
Scott hasn't equally spoken of her madness (which I hope isn't as severe) because he's going no comment, but I'm sure the children will be speaking up about that.

Tortoise said:
It's interesting to see the sequence unfold -


19th July - Sarah wrote "If I thought for one minute it’s true, her dad wouldn’t be here.”

22nd July - the day after reporting Bee missing - Sarah told police that Bee had admitted lying.

9th Sep - three days before her arrest - Sarah told police she didn't believe Bee's allegations against Scott.

10th Sep to 12th Sep - between Scott's arrest and her own arrest - with Scott in police custody Sarah still didn't make any disclosure to police about him threatening her or harming the children, or thinking Bee hadn't run away.

12th Sep - after her arrest - Sarah said Bee's allegations didn't add up because she knew Scott had broken his phone, and she also said she'd received texts from Bee after her disappearance saying she'd be home soon.

Then later she said ScW was terrified of going to prison, he'd forced her to send the texts, he'd seriously physically assaulted a boy and a baby, and made threats to kill her, her boyfriend and the dog, yet she hadn't believed he could have sexually assaulted Bee.

She then said "I'm sure at that point I still believed she'd ran off." That point being when she sent the messages. So after that she did not believe she'd run off. It's an unreliable admission (imo) because firstly she says "I'm sure", still leaving open the option of admitting she knew straight away depending on what evidence they show her, and secondly she hasn't given a turning point for when she stopped believing she'd run off, and lastly she's lied about what she believed between the beginning and the end of her post-arrest interview.

Saying she now doesn't believe Bee ran off doesn't bode well for continuing the defence that she doesn't believe Scott murdered Bee.

Neither does this line "I think he might have hurt her now...I don't want her to be dead, I don't want to accept that."
Click to expand...
 
Eh? is that it from the defendant then? or is the defendant witness no 14?

Cambridge Crown Court 1 T20207197
Sarah Walker
Scott Walker
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:52
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:05
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:25
Trial (Part Heard) - Defendant Sworn - 11:45
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:05 - 13:00
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:02
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 14 Continues - 14:08



yes, ignore me, it says continues, must be one of the defendants.
 
Tortoise said:
Eh? is that it from the defendant then? or is the defendant witness no 14?

Cambridge Crown Court 1 T20207197
Sarah Walker
Scott Walker
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:52
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:05
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:25
Trial (Part Heard) - Defendant Sworn - 11:45
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:05 - 13:00
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:02
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 14 Continues - 14:08
I am really interested to find out which one!!


yes, ignore me, it says continues, must be one of the defendants.
Click to expand...
 
Did someone say on here that the defendants have to go in the order in which they are listed by the court? I've read it somewhere recently.

If that's true Sarah's name is listed above Scott's.

Then again if one of them decides not to testify it would move on to the other anyway. I hope we get a report from the BBC, hopefully they aren't all on holiday too.
 
I was wondering why there might be reporting restrictions, as I confess, I haven’t really heard much about them previously. I’m sure there are various reasons they may apply, but found this info which could fit with the proceedings we are following.

Quote below snipped from:

https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/reporting-restrictions-in-the-criminal-courts/

…..Although restrictions on the reporting of criminal proceedings might not seem relevant to family justice or the Court of Protection, there may be a crossover in some cases. For example, criminal proceedings involving allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse of children could well have some impact on, or give rise to, further proceedings in the Family Court. Reporting what happens in one court could impact on the conduct of proceedings in the other.
 
Such a shame that there appears to be a news blackout at the crucial moment as both journalists covering the story at the Peterborough Telegraph have gone on holiday at the same time, and at the very moment the accused take the stand. Words fail me.
 
CSIAngus said:
Such a shame that there appears to be a news blackout at the crucial moment as both journalists covering the story at the Peterborough Telegraph have gone on holiday at the same time, and at the very moment the accused take the stand. Words fail me.
Click to expand...
You would have thought they would have got cover really. I'm sure some trainee would have jumped at the chance.
 
CSIAngus said:
Such a shame that there appears to be a news blackout at the crucial moment as both journalists covering the story at the Peterborough Telegraph have gone on holiday at the same time, and at the very moment the accused take the stand. Words fail me.
Click to expand...
Any other national papers covering it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 1,563 (members: 74, guests: 1,489)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
1,489
Total visitors
1,563
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,538
Messages
18,110,171
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top