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

[mrazda71]

They bought their child a wheelchair, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they pocketed the money they raised.
About 'there's grants' is there really?
Its actually extremely tough to get a wheelchair agreed on by a health professional, because they're very against people becoming wheelchair bound. And for people with conditions that cause them to sometimes be active, yet sometimes need a chair, these are the ones who are left buying their own wheelchairs, with no medical professional happy to write that they're wheelchair bound.
The nature of this type of disability that doesn't present as they same each day, may be why they did not qualify for high rate child mobility, if they did not, which would have got them a 'free disability car".
In cases were a disabled child is only awarded low rate mobility they cannot get help with a car.
Its extremely hard to get high rate mobility.
And it's extremely hard to get wheelchairs awarded when the person is able to walk some of the time.

In case no one else has - I just want to correct this because people who are fortunate enough to never find themselves in a world of disability might read that and take it as fact -

You do NOT get a 'free car'

IF you meet the requirements - you can get a mobility car which you don't get to just go out and choose any you like - it is specific mobility dealers and specific cars - that car is then paid for every month with the mobility element of your disability benefit (PIP/DLA) - so very much NOT free - and that car can be taken from you at any given moment if there are changes to your health or PIP/DLA payments - it's not yours to keep, you are 'just' hiring it.

Added to that - if the vehicle needs adaptions - for example, my daughter suffered a Stroke at 13 & needs adaptions to the foot pedals and one handed steering/operation - you have to pay for those - they're not free either!

 

[SaintMoore]

Exactly. Hence it being in quotes.

In case no one else has - I just want to correct this because people who are fortunate enough to never find themselves in a world of disability might read that and take it as fact -

You do NOT get a 'free car'

IF you meet the requirements - you can get a mobility car which you don't get to just go out and choose any you like - it is specific mobility dealers and specific cars - that car is then paid for every month with the mobility element of your disability benefit (PIP/DLA) - so very much NOT free - and that car can be taken from you at any given moment if there are changes to your health or PIP/DLA payments - it's not yours to keep, you are 'just' hiring it.

Added to that - if the vehicle needs adaptions - for example, my daughter suffered a Stroke at 13 & needs adaptions to the foot pedals and one handed steering/operation - you have to pay for those - they're not free either!

 

[Happygirlie2003]

I have been following this case from the start and I find the whole family dynamic totally baffling, blended families are pretty common now so current partners and ex partners can co parent that’s fair enough. However in this instance if SCW was so abusive and BW told her mum he had been sexually abusing her why would SaW take his side and not protect her daughter even if she wasn’t 100% sure it had happened, then to allow him one to one contact in the car on those circumstances doesn’t make any sense. Just seems to me ScW has a definite hold over SaW in knowing information about her life that she didn’t want in the public domain, this is where the money side of things go fund me spending might be relevant if she had other non relevant financial gains from her public fundraising for her kids with additional needs purely IMO.

To protect your ex over your own flesh and blood stinks to the highest degree then to possibly help them or help them cover up murdering your daughter is on a whole other level, im aware innocent until proven guilty but still... I’m appalled by this case. I keep wondering how much of the going’s on was the new boyfriend aware of, did he know what he was getting himself into with SaW/ScW family set up. The rest of those poor kids must be traumatised

 

[Skigh]

Quoted from the BBC news report:

Ms Wilding, turning to events of 18 July, said: "For most people, a child disappearing like that would be like the sky crashing in."

Mr Walker responded: "Yes, I know that feeling."

"But still, your first concern was Sarah and her relationship with Chris wasn't it?" Ms Wilding said.

"Yes... it was the first time I'd fell out of love with Sarah."



any thoughts on this?

he contradicts himself by saying the sky falls in, then admits he was actually just concerned about Sarah and COC.

but in what context does he mean ‘it was the first time I fell out of love with Sarah’? I want to understand what he is is stating that made the love go. What did Sarah do that caused this? Because it sounds like he is stating a sudden loss of feeling to me. A reaction. The relationship with COC had been going on for - what? - almost a year? So it wasn’t just that she was seeing someone else, it was something more. Another betrayal.
And in my book, once you’re out of love, you’re out - it doesn’t preoccupy you - you move on. The betrayal is what preoccupies you.

edited to clarify my jumbled thoughts!

MOO

I wonder if he was more upset by Berni having finally had the courage to talk about being abused and it was Berni he felt had betrayed him.Perhaps in his warped mind he felt this made him fall out of love with Berni rather than Sarah.

 

[SaintMoore]

I reckon so!
He was actually in love with Berni and was heartbroken he 'had to kill her'. He was feeling sorry for himself in some way, regardless, rather than frantically searching for his child. As he would in a missing case.

I wonder if he was more upset by Berni having finally had the courage to talk about being abused and it was Berni he felt had betrayed him.Perhaps in his warped mind he felt this made him fall out of love with Berni rather than Sarah.

 

[Sooty]

I wonder if he was more upset by Berni having finally had the courage to talk about being abused and it was Berni he felt had betrayed him.Perhaps in his warped mind he felt this made him fall out of love with Berni rather than Sarah.

Yes perhaps that could be the case … he felt betrayed by B, which then amplified his feelings of betrayal by Sarah with CoC

 

[Sooty]

I think it was Mercsw who indicated that from a being a teenager SW had had relationships with older men. It could be that she saw the abuse of BW as a developing romantic relationship rather than what it actually was.

As she had moved on romantically, she might have not had an issue with this from the viewpoint she may have chosen to take. She then didn’t want to know when BW demonstrated how she herself saw things as this presented as a real issue for everyone.

SW’s view of the world might well be different than the norm - developed from her own experiences as a teen.

I wonder if that’s why ScW went to collect BW - could he have been trying to get BW to see the abuse ‘their’ way?



My own thoughts and musings only.

 

[Skigh]

Yes perhaps that could be the case … he felt betrayed by B, which then amplified his feelings of betrayal by Sarah with CoC

I am not so sure ScW was that concerned with Sarah's relationship shop with CoC, I have the feeling this was not the first time Sarah had formed a relationship shop with another man during their time together. I wonder if CoC viewed his relationship with Sarah as more of a casual affair rather than a long term commitment.
I also have considered whether ,as Berni was moving towards adult hood,ScW was turning his attentions more towards Elizabeth.

 

[Tortoise]

I constantly chuck coconuts at my own theories, which is entirely healthy. They are straw men that I should try to knock down. It's easy to get caught up in a tunnel of thinking and become resitant to other interpretations. That is what I like about this site and the company that many of us have now kept for months on this case.

I can quite accept that SaW instructed ScW to give BW 'a good telling' on the way home from the grandparents about the 'untrue' SA claims. However, it wasn't untrue and ScW actually killed her daughter because it was fact and he didn't want to be unmasked as a nonce, which SaW wasn't expecting. By that point SaW was already hacking accounts and using BW's phone to try to erase/refute/retract the SA allegations. ScW murdered BW and disposed of her body (early hours of the 19th up towards Newborough). I believe SaW knew of the murder for certain close to the event but continued the lie that BW had run away, for whatever reason. As the prosecution said, SaW entered into an "unholy alliance" with ScW to cover up the murder. For me, the CPS have the charges spot on.

Morning!

I hope you don't mind me helping to chuck coconuts at the straw men.

Let's examine a new argument. What exactly in the call from Scott would mean that Sarah could now start sending messages from Bee's phone? ‘Hi, it’s me, I ran away. I don’t want to be in trouble for lying.'

She had her phone all night and morning. She was on Bee's phone during those times. What stopped Sarah messaging the friend before the call from Scott, to say "Hi it's me, I'm sorry I've been lying to you"

What does running away have to do with it? If anything, running away increases the likelihood she will run to a friend in person because she can't call the friend.

Does it not seem a tad hicky that BOTH the running away and the lying are equally unlikely to be true? Knowing that there has been no trace of her AND that she wrote in her diary about the allegations? Also knowing that Bee was old enough as a college student to find her own way around town and smart enough to find a way of contact through one trusted friend with social media?

But also, far more sinister, is the implication that not sending messages about lying before the call from Scott was because in the morning she didn't have any control over what Bee would do, and whether Bee might refuse to get in the car with Scott. What about the time after the call made it easier for Sarah to say these things, and conversely before the call made it harder for Sarah to say Bee was lying?

It looks like waiting to have control over Bee to me, and control means death and knowing that control won't be in her hands until after Scott's call. Waiting means knowing in advance. IMO.

 

[MrsBrooks]

I think it was Mercsw who indicated that from a being a teenager SW had had relationships with older men. It could be that she saw the abuse of BW as a developing romantic relationship rather than what it actually was.

As she had moved on romantically, she might have not had an issue with this from the viewpoint she may have chosen to take. She then didn’t want to know when BW demonstrated how she herself saw things as this presented as a real issue for everyone.

SW’s view of the world might well be different than the norm - developed from her own experiences as a teen.

I wonder if that’s why ScW went to collect BW - could he have been trying to get BW to see the abuse ‘their’ way?



My own thoughts and musings only.

I have thought this from the beginning that SaW perhaps did not view it as abuse and rather a relationship. However, I do believe she was bothered by it and jealous. I just think her reaction of not believing B isn’t not believing her that something occurred but that she viewed it from a completely different perspective. The way she allowed B to be taken to her grandparents by ScW, and equally, how she did not appear concerned that her child was missing (let’s say she doesn’t know what happened to B) indicates resentment .I think she felt betrayed by B. While it doesn’t add up fully, did SaW take Bs phone and access her social media and messages to find ‘proof’ of a ‘relationship’?

I just want to add I of course do not view what occurred between B and ScW as a relationship, she is a child and she was obviously abused!

 

[Sooty]

I mean, it makes me feel ill to think of it - but in uk law, assuming (if you can possibly go there) a completely different situation where consent can be considered to have been freely given, can someone legally have a relationship with their ‘ step ‘ if there is no existing marriage with the other parent?

this might well appear to be irrelevant to this case, it makes me feel uncomfortable to ask tbh, but I’m wondering if there was ever some warped rationalisation going on somewhere at sometime by ScW or SW.

Blown apart by the allegations of long term abuse.

 

[Sooty]

I am all over the place with my thoughts on this case!

 

[Kitkat28]

Can we please stop with the implication that there was any sort of “relationship” between Bernadette and ScW.

Whether he and SaW were married or not, he was in a position in the home of acting as a father and therefore in loco parentis. This makes any contact morally, if not legally, incestuous and a gross abuse of power. It doesn’t matter one iota if BW “consented” (no one is able to consent to being abused) or “reciprocated”. If any sexual contact or advances took place, it was abuse plain and simple.

 

[Sooty]

Can we please stop with the implication that there was any sort of “relationship” between Bernadette and ScW.

Whether he and SaW were married or not, he was in a position in the home of acting as a father and therefore in loco parentis. This makes any contact morally, if not legally, incestuous and a gross abuse of power. It doesn’t matter one iota if BW “consented” (no one is able to consent to being abused) or “reciprocated”. If any sexual contact or advances took place, it was abuse plain and simple.

nobody has suggested anything other than it was abuse.

BW was abused. For years. Her own mother did not want to know. I find this impossibly hard to understand and I am trying to work out why this could be. I feel it is key to motive.

 

[Tortoise]

Cambridge Crown Court 1 T20207197
Sarah Walker
Scott Walker
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 14 Continues - 10:13
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 11:13

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Cambridge-Crown-Court.php

 

[Mercsw]

I think it was Mercsw who indicated that from a being a teenager SW had had relationships with older men. It could be that she saw the abuse of BW as a developing romantic relationship rather than what it actually was.

As she had moved on romantically, she might have not had an issue with this from the viewpoint she may have chosen to take. She then didn’t want to know when BW demonstrated how she herself saw things as this presented as a real issue for everyone.

SW’s view of the world might well be different than the norm - developed from her own experiences as a teen.

I wonder if that’s why ScW went to collect BW - could he have been trying to get BW to see the abuse ‘their’ way?



My own thoughts and musings only.

Without sleuthing non accused, the ages show she was impregnated at 15 by a much older man, and so you have to wonder when and how that emerged. The child ended up in care of someone else and there was physical abuse reported by Sarah. The problem is that it repeats and repeats. It becomes normal and part of growing up.

No excuse for some of what has happened, but we are all products of our own past and daemons

 

[Tortoise]

I will console myself with the hope that we have a WSer in the public gallery today.

It looks like PT responded to our protestations about the lack of reporting by arranging a PA reporter just for a day to quieten us, and following complaints the BBC sent someone for all of 5 minutes just to say up yours.

MOO

 

[MrsBrooks]

Can we please stop with the implication that there was any sort of “relationship” between Bernadette and ScW.

Whether he and SaW were married or not, he was in a position in the home of acting as a father and therefore in loco parentis. This makes any contact morally, if not legally, incestuous and a gross abuse of power. It doesn’t matter one iota if BW “consented” (no one is able to consent to being abused) or “reciprocated”. If any sexual contact or advances took place, it was abuse plain and simple.

Of course it was abuse! - however, you cannot ignore IMO that SaW perhaps viewed it differently. If it is true, that she viewed it that way, it strengthens her motive and supports the WHY of her involvement. I believe Sarah’s involvement was influenced by intense emotions of resentment and betrayal. It makes no sense for her to instantly dismiss her daughters allegations without her having a reason to do so.

 

[Crazysaz]

@Kitkat28 hi my comment wasn’t directed at you and I knew you had a disability as you had already mentioned it. I realise I should have written in my opinion about them pocketing the money. I had had a few gins the other night! Although I’ve been on ws for ages I’ve only started commenting on this thread. Without giving too much away, my job involves helping those with disabilities including disabled facilities grants. I like various posts even if they are contradictory as its interesting to see different opinions. I might only agree with half a post but I can still like it! I actually can’t believe you are looking to see what I’ve liked?!
Oh and with regard to motability car, I’d their wee kids had this benefit which I’m pretty sure they would have then it’s a payment of approx £250 a month. So they can have a car, taxed, insured, upkeep or keep the money and get their own car which is what the walkers must have done. Yeah and as someone said adaptations for car have to be paid for and certain vehicles need a bit deposit so it’s not as free as it looks!

 

[Tanzanite]

This whole question of what SaW knew, and when...the waters are continually muddied by her failure, at every single turn that we know of, to resemble anything like a frantic, frightened mother of a missing beloved child. From the moment BW told her that ScW had been abusing her, to now: lies, more lies, 'that' car trip in the dead of night where she conveniently fell asleep and didn't question what they were doing, the immediate tampering with BW's social media, etc.

If she is innocent of being involved with the disappearance, cover-up, death, etc. of her child, why all the twisting and turning and convoluted explanations? Being innocent of any of this would look very different. There seems to be not one period of time where there was a sense of linear, simple, appropriate action on her part.

This morning, as I reflect on it all, I'm less inclined to bend myself into knots trying to understand SaW's motives. I don't believe that she killed BW, but I believe that she knew ScW was going to do so, didn't lift a finger to prevent it, and then tried to cover any tracks she could think of, while also laying a false cyber-trail for the future police investigation.

To circle round, what bothers me is that I know that I feel partly like this because she failed to act like a mother, and I'm judging that and possibly lending it undue weight, which is what I mean by muddying the waters.

Finally (for now), I have also a renewed feeling that BW reported the abuse as she had concerns about the younger sister and ScW's access to her. Maybe that triggered taking the younger sister to the b/f's house. Maybe it was just wasn't about BW. Maybe something else had already occurred and SaW sensed that everything was about to spin out of her sphere of control. Blind eyes were being wilfully turned all over the place, I suspect.