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.
Mercsw said:
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.
Click to expand...
If this is a fact then SaW was abused too. It doesn’t in any way mitigate what is alleged to have happened since, but I think we should stop referring to that part of her history in conjunction with her later relationships.
 
MIdge28 said:
ScW had a Mac which 6 months prior to Bernadette disappearing was smashed up by SaW. ScW said he refused to give SaW the password. After Bea disappeared ScW paid for the Mac to be repaired. When asked why he hadn’t had it fixed before he said they couldn’t afford to.
Click to expand...

perhaps he needed it repaired to delete some items???

sorry midge I crossed over with your post!
 
Definitely sounds like they both had a need for ‘control’ just from that little example, midge.

ETA

sorry brain is slow today …..

or maybe SW had some suspicions/knowledge back then and this destructive act was an angry reaction to that….
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
Morning!

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

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.
Click to expand...
I'm used to your coconuts. LOL

Yes, the timing of the direct contact with friends does look to post date the 'disappearance', however BW's phone was activated in the early hours and there was activity on her Gmail and Facebook accounts prior to and during the pick up. Do we know what those activities were? I quite believe that SaW could impose herself on any of the children's IT devices and take them over if she wished. I retain Admin access on all the devices in my home so that I can ensure their safe use and age appropriate content. I don't envisage doing that when they are 17 however, but who knows what the rules were in that household. Have we any explanation from SaW as to why she took BW's phone from her? If we consider the running away hypothesis where by SaW believes BW has gone off and doesn't know that ScW has killed her, then it can only be explained as a way of deleting and exponging any reference to the abuse allegation against ScW to protect him/her/them. However, it may be as you suggest in the alternative hypothesis, that it points to part of a sequence in an agreed plan that included silencing BW for good.

Although extremely rare, parents do kill their children, but I still do not believe that SaW would kill one of her children or agree to it. I'm happy to be confounded on that if further evidence supports it.
 
I think she was 16 when she got pregnant. But anyway, yes, past experiences seem to repeat themselves again and again..
But she was steady with Scott for 13 or 14 years. So it appeared that being a victim was something she'd moved on from. As long as Scott being an abuser wasn't brought to light.
But now allegations of Scott being violent and controlling have come to light, it seems she hadn't moved on from the victim role, at all.

Mercsw said:
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
Click to expand...
 
These "if Sarah had really suffered domestic violence she wouldn't have done a, b, c" comments are absolutely ridiculous.

There's no set way for a victim to act.
<modnsip>

Victims can abuse, and abusers can be victims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Friendly Mod Reminder:

Information stated as fact requires a link to a MSM or LE statement be included in the post. If the information can’t be supported with a link, don’t post it.

If you are a friend or family member and wish to post without including links, please review the process for becoming a verified insider. Without VI status such posts will be removed.

Thanks

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters
 
SaintMoore said:
These "if Sarah had really suffered domestic violence she wouldn't have done a, b, c" comments are absolutely ridiculous.

There's no set way for a victim to act.
For God sakes.

Victims can abuse, and abusers can be victims.
Click to expand...

thank you - I believe they’re both guilty, and she failed BW terribly even before her ‘disappearance’.. but neither of those preclude her from being a victim of domestic violence.

IMO the longer you stay in a seriously abusive relationship, the more warped your parameters of ‘normal’ seem to be, and given she already had one child removed (which is a trauma even if you are not a capable parent, surely) she may have been convinced without him around she would be at risk of losing everything.

In this context, IMO, her actions become slightly more understandable (not excusable!) - BW in her eyes may have been threatening to upset everything when she told SaW about the abuse from SW, she did what SW told her to do “to make it go away”.. if she wanted to keep the child that was removed a fear of getting any authorities involved makes more sense to me at least, as she would probably not have felt listened to or believed then.

As an aside working tax credits aren’t applied for any children over your 3rd, her having so many children to me potentially backs up claims of DV, abusers are known to use pregnancy as a way to keep their partners compliant. If a woman is either pregnant or has young children to look after it is harder to leave. Especially since they weren’t well off. I did think SaW was the mastermind at first, but as more of the history comes out then even if she planned it she’s a deeply damaged and broken individual, not the cold, calculating sociopath i first pictured.

ETA: I went to college with a girl who told me she was being abused by her stepfather and stepbrother - she disclosed the abuse to her mum, mum accused her of trying to steal her boyfriend, kicked her out of the house, and 12 hours later my friend was dead on a beach from an overdose. The local papers described it as a “relationship” between my friend and her stepdad (puke). So those attitudes aren’t that uncommon even today.

all jmo ymmv (and hello - long time lurker, first time posting!)
 
Last edited:
You're absolutely spot on

aeaea said:
thank you - I believe they’re both guilty, and she failed BW terribly even before her ‘disappearance’.. but neither of those preclude her from being a victim of domestic violence.

IMO the longer you stay in a seriously abusive relationship, the more warped your parameters of ‘normal’ seem to be, and given she already had one child removed (which is a trauma even if you are not a capable parent, surely) she may have been convinced without him around she would be at risk of losing everything.

In this context, IMO, her actions become slightly more understandable (not excusable!) - BW in her eyes may have been threatening to upset everything when she told SaW about the abuse from SW, she did what SW told her to do “to make it go away”.. if she wanted to keep the child that was removed a fear of getting any authorities involved makes more sense to me at least, as she would probably not have felt listened to or believed then.

As an aside working tax credits aren’t applied for any children over your 3rd, her having so many children to me potentially backs up claims of DV, abusers are known to use pregnancy as a way to keep their partners compliant. If a woman is either pregnant or has young children to look after it is harder to leave. Especially since they weren’t well off. I did think SaW was the mastermind at first, but as more of the history comes out then even if she planned it she’s a deeply damaged and broken individual, not the cold, calculating sociopath i first pictured.

all jmo ymmv (and hello - long time lurker, first time posting!)
Click to expand...
 
A nagging thought though...if we imagine that SaW's actions or part in the 'silencing' of BW were an impulsive, self-preservation measure upon disclosure of the allegations, then we also have to believe that ScW abused BW from the age of 11 without SaW noticing. I'm struggling with that one. I think she was aware of it, and possibly had tested out potential strategies in her head in the event that BW talked.

If SaW in fact DID know about the abuse (and I'm inclined to think this is more likely), then her failure to act can possibly be attributed to myriad reasons. The end point of that, whatever her reasons for not protecting BW, is that she is not capable of providing a safe environment for any child, now or in the future.

I wonder how much will be made of SaW's background by her counsel? I agree 100% that there is no right or wrong way for victims of abuse/DV to act, react or conduct their lives or relationships. I do, however, think that varying patterns of behaviour can emerge - there would be no means of studying the effects otherwise, and forming helping strategies. I also believe that - by and large - victims of longterm coercion/coercive control would usually present in a way that would be immediately authentic.

Is any of this SaW? No idea. There are scraps of information about ScW, but far too little to get a real picture of what on earth was going on in that household.
 
SaintMoore said:
These "if Sarah had really suffered domestic violence she wouldn't have done a, b, c" comments are absolutely ridiculous.

There's no set way for a victim to act.
For God sakes.

Victims can abuse, and abusers can be victims.
Click to expand...
This. People think they know how they’d act and what they’d do if they were being abused, but no two victims are the same.

Tanzanite said:
If SaW in fact DID know about the abuse (and I'm inclined to think this is more likely), then her failure to act can possibly be attributed to myriad reasons. The end point of that, whatever her reasons for not protecting BW, is that she is not capable of providing a safe environment for any child, now or in the future.
Click to expand...
She must have known; or at least had pretty strong suspicions. I fail to see how any person living in the same house wouldn’t after that amount of time.
 
court finished early today.


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
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 11:45 - 11:16
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 14 Continues - 11:48
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 12:42
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:05 - 12:46
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:03
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 14:20
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 14:27
 
From The Law Pages

'Legal Submissions in the court hearings listing mean that legal technicalities are under discussion either within the court (where the jury may have to be removed) or the chambers. The Prosecution and/or the Defence Counsel will be addressing the judge. Under some circumstances the public may be denied access to the court until the submissions are complete. Outside the court door a sign will make it clear that the court is not open to the public and may say 'in chambers'
 
Those short legal submissions are usually just boring stuff like timetabling the case and witnesses. Legal arguments between the sides usually go on longer, for instance if something is admissible, which the judge then has to decide on.

If they finished cross-examination of Scott and Sarah's case was going to open it would be usual to adjourn until the next day so that she can prepare. Or it could be that Sarah's barrister requested time this afternoon to prepare for cross-examination of Scott, and they needed time to talk to Sarah first. Just guessing really, hopefully we will find out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 1,787 (members: 85, guests: 1,702)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
1,702
Total visitors
1,787
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

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