Let's see how the Defence approach this. We only have one side of the case. They were indeed back home at 3.07am but the prosecution have not given a location for 3.03am. I would have thought the Police would have asked SaW what time the 'sleeping' SaW got home that night, and the response to have featured in the timeline they were painting for the jury.
Yes so she had 6 children already when she met ScW and then 4 more during her time with him. So 10 children altogether but according to BWs brother ScW was the father of all 4 of the younger ones which would include new baby. So the only way that adds up is if the first 6 all had different fathers? The brother states he was 6 when he met ScW so SaW must of had 6 kids in 7 years before that!!
I think is is she who is the narcissist not him! She shows all the classic traits. I truly believe she wielded the power in that relationship.
I think you'd have to do that in a private chat. Information here has to be backed up by mainstream media links, and the children aren't part of this case. There are reporting restrictions in place to protect the children.
I agree. I do wonder though where the quote about 7 different fathers came from. Anyone know?
I can't remember if that was from actual court records or not. I think it might just have been a bit of information added by the reporter, in which case I wouldn't personally take it as fact, as the local news in this area are known to be shockingly bad. Cambridge news reporters were actually blocked from a village facebook group were I use to live for copying and pasting peoples comments on there and turning it in to a story. MOO
Okay, thank you
Thanks. Yes I thought so and it was then reported in the trial coverage. I wonder why the prosecution quoted it though? Does it somehow have relevance to the case?
How do you interpret the 'activity' the prosecutor referred to?
I think it sets the scene to help the jury understand the people on trial, the dynamics of their relationship, and what might have motivated their actions. Are they going to believe she did what she is accused of? ScW stuck around after SaW started a new relationship, he was possibly providing childcare for her when she was at her boyfriend's house, so was she going to protect him whatever he did, what were her priorities when Bee disclosed to her? those kinds of issues, IMO. I do think there are many details that won't have been reported, for instance any minors in the house during police visits to talk to the parents.
Could be anything that isn't 'inactivity'. The prosecution have called it 'unexplained' so they clearly do not know. It's a gap in the known record. The prosecution have no facts around BWs actual murder and disposal but they have gaps in the known record when these events could have taken place. I really do hope that the evidence in court is a lot stronger than has been reported.
The nature of the activity is unexplained, but not the fact that there was activity of some sort.
Beyond reasonable doubt... Not 100% proven evidence.
Quite. We can agree on that and move on.
Exactly, she knew that Bee wasn't going to pop up in London or somewhere while she, Sarah, was sending texts from Bee's phone in Cowbit. And the allegations of abuse wouldn't have gone away if Bee was still alive, so all the texts Sarah wrote about deleting everything and her lies were completely pointless if Sarah thought she was alive.
I agree. IMO, ScW killed BW, her body was disposed of, and ScW and SaW were both involved in covering it up and lying to everyone. I have my own theory of how this occureed but it is a straw man that I continuously try to knock down. We know why, at least regarding ScW, but from the reports of the prosecution case the unanswered questions are how, when and where. That leaves the defence team with quite some scope to sow doubt.
