Wow welldone this is excellent information! I am fairly certain from the above that neither will be walking away from court free!There is now a report from the PT online from today - sorry I don’t know how to add links! I won’t repeat what’s in the PT report but there were a few interesting points that they have missed out.
The judge went chronologically through the events leading up to, including and immediately after Bea’s disappearance. At various points she stopped and questioned SaW’s and ScW’s actions. She highlighted more than once evidence of ScW and SaW working together to deceive. The first example being after the youngest was born (DNA proves ScW is the father) she was discharged from hospital within 24 hours. She told Chris she had to stay in hospital for a week. After a week ScW took SaW and the baby back to the hospital to meet Chris. This she said was a clear illustration of the two of them working together, of ScW joining in SaW’s deception.
In the weeks before 18/07 SaW messaged friends telling them she had a solicitor involved in trying to remove ScW from the home and that was why it was delayed. This was a lie - there was no solicitor.
SaW and the baby went out to dinner with ScW in a restaurant. ScW pays a stranger £10 to take a photo of him with SaW and the baby and send it to Chris O’C’s phone.
On 17/07 the day after Bea has confided in her mum about the SA, SaW threatens Bea with SS taking the baby away and the younger children going into care if she carries on with the allegations. SaW tells Bea she is at the police station with ScW and that ScW is going into the police station to tell them about Bea’s allegation. This was a lie - they were both parked over the road to the police station when the message was sent to Bea. Another example of them working together and ScW joining in with SaW’s deception.
The judge went through the events of Saturday morning proved by phone data. She then focussed on the 9 minute phone call. There had never been a phone call of that length before or after between SaW and ScW. She then moves onto ScW’s account of what happened while his phone was switched off. She said there were 4 accounts of what happened during that time. 1st account is SaW’s to police, 2nd is the witness accounts to the police, 3rd is the defence statement and 4th was the evidence given by a cell site expert. After being questioned he then reinvestigates and a new map is produced showing ScW’s phone travelled east during that hour and a half. ScW then changes his story to fit the findings of the investigation.
Judge stressed how important this was. Just before the break the judge went through the evidence of what SaW was doing on line after the 9 minute call. She finished with the question - Why would SaW start creating a false trail which would delay external involvement?
Great place to pause I thought!
After break she carried on with phone evidence from 18th including the buying of the top up and SIM card. ScW has admitted to seeing a camera at the Spar. Judge asks - Why is Scott worrying about a camera if Bernadette has run away? ScW said he needed to shoe the phone was not in SaW’s possession. They then plan to involve Amanda. On 19th ScW drops SaW at Amanda’s. ScW leaves his phone at the lock up, drives to Westwood then messages SaW who he knows is with Amanda. The judge said Amanda is used by SaW and ScW - another case of the two of them working together to achieve deception. She told the jury to ask themselves why was it important to show SaW was not holding the phone if Bernadette has just disappeared.
When SaW messages Luke asking if Bea is still with him, he replies -No, she never was. The messages then shift to Chloe - the friend who lives in a farm out in the Fens. scW and SaW then make the trip to Crowland where they turn Bea’s phone on and send messages.
The judge then moved onto the 3am phone call to the police in which ScW can be heard joining in with SaW’s account to deceive the police.
The judge points out that a girl whose life is lived through social media has not accessed it since she disappeared. She has no phone, no money, no cards. She said that circumstantial evidence can be used by a jury to convict.
ScW and SaW were in court but could not clearly be seen from the public gallery. The judge referred to them as the defendants when asking them to stand down. Also in court we’re ScW’s dad and his wife. When the judge finished summing up ScW’s dad said “Well, he ‘ent coming ‘one then!”
Sorry this so long but I thought some of this info was important and needed sharing.
thank you so much for your write up !