GUILTY UK - Julia James, 53, murdered, Snowdown, Kent, 27 April 2021 *ARREST* #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Wheeler's arrest​

The court has heard that at about 9.20pm on May 7, police attended the defendant's home address to arrest him.

Police were allowed entry by defendant's father. The defendant had barricaded himself into his bedroom and took some time to gain access. At 9.31pm, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of murder. The weapon is said to have been in the corner of the room.

The proescution says the defendant told officers he was not guilty and that someone had ratted on him, but then said "sometimes I do things I cannot control".

He also is said to have asked officers why he was being arrested as opposed to anyone else. The defendant was changing the bags that were used to cover the item. Whilst in custody, the defendant reportedlt said "you *advertiser censored***** b******* five of you ran in and I didn’t even use a weapon. A weapon was there.’



 

Wheeler: ‘sometimes I do things I cannot control’​



By May 7, the pictures taken by Gavin Tucker during his altercation with Wheeler the day after the murder had been widely circulated by the media.
At 9.20pm, police officers entered Callum Wheeler’s home to arrest him.
While officers were allowed into the property by the defendant’s father, Wheeler had barricaded himself into his bedroom and it took “some time” for the police to gain access to him, the CPS said.
Alison Morgan QC told Canterbury Crown Court: “You will want to consider the defendant’s comments when he was arrested and his denials of being involved in the murder.
“Some of the comments amount to clear denials, saying that he was not guilty and that someone had ‘ratted’ on him.
“Others appear to be less clear, such as saying ‘sometimes I do things I cannot control’.
“At one point, the defendant asked why he was being arrested as opposed to anyone else.




Julia James PSCO murder trial: Killer 'seen roaming woods with railway jack 24 hours before attack'
 

Five of you ran in and I didn’t even use a f—--g weapon, when there was a weapon right there’​



Describing his arrest, Alison Morgan QC for the Crown continued: “On entry to his bedroom, police officers found the railway jack in the corner of the room.
“Both ends were covered in plastic bags.
“Notably, whilst in police custody, at 1.57am, the defendant said to an officer ‘… bastards…five of you ran in and I didn’t even use a weapon, when there was a weapon right there’.
“At that time, no one else other than the defendant had referred to that item as a weapon.
“You will want to consider why it was that the defendant viewed it in that way.”



 

Forensic evidence​

Alison Morgan QC has laid out the forensic evidence for the prosecution.

She told the court:

Julia’s Wellingtons: It is accepted that the defendants DNA was found on two areas of the left-hand boot.

Julia's jacket: The defendant's DNA was found underneath the right-hand armpit and on the outside of the right pocket and inside of the right pocket and left and right cuffs.

Julia was wearing a blue coat over a grey jumper. Heavily bloodstained grey jumper, beneath that she was wearing a white vest, bloodstain on that too.

Defendant's DNA found on the white vest (underneath her grey jumper underneath her coat). Must consider what the defendant might have done and might have touched.

The DNA findings are all now accepted.

Julia was lying face down with her hood up. Area of blood found to the side of her. She bled to the ground in at least one location.


Ms Morgan has also laid out the Items seized from defendant:

Defendant's shoes - blood from Julia found on both black Nike trainers, on outer area, tongue and stitching.

Weapon - item has been looked at by a number of scientists. It is a railway jack which would be used to make adjustments to the railway tracks. It is metal, 96.6cms long.

There is a grip in the middle of it. It weighs over 3kg. Bar had a number of areas of blood staining on it.

There is blood staining from Julia on this item in various locations. The plastic bags also have DNA matching the defendant on there.

Deposits of adhesive residue was found along the pole. The gluey residue was sticky indicating to experts that that area had been freshly exposed. Rubber sheet handle had started at one end of the bar but had moved recently to expose the adhesive underneath.

Adhesive had kept the handle in place but the handle must have been dislodged with some force.

Ms Morgan continued: "Julia’s hair was also examined, particles of the adhesive were found within her hair. That is a significant forensic finding."


 

The key question is whether or not he intended to kill her or cause her serious harm'​

The prosecution has said the defendant was interviewed on May 9 and provided a short prepared statement in which he asserted he did not have anything to say, "however I wish to say I have not murdered Julia James."

Alison Morgan QC told the court:

The defendant is charged with the murder of Julia James. He accepts killing her but does not accept the offence of murder.
He accepts he was acting unlawfully. What he does not accept is that he had the intention requisite to approve murder.

No evidence of any mental illnesses, not an issue in that case.

How it is that when the defendant admits he did not intend to cause Julia serious harm when hitting her with the metal pole is down to him.

He waited for Julia or another vulnerable female to be in that woods. He chased her down. Unable to outrun him, caught by surprise, he struck her.

She fell to the ground and broke her wrist. Then when she was face down on the ground he struck her again and again and again.

She had no chance of survival. As he hit her, he knew that and he intended it.

The key question is whether or not he intended to kill her or cause her serious harm.






the BIB is mine
 

I wish to say that I have not murdered Julia James'​



The CPS said a “significant number of forensic findings”, including the railway jack, linked the defendant to Julia James and Julia James to the defendant.
Alison Morgan QC told the jury: “The defendant was interviewed by the police on May 9, 2021.
“He was interviewed in the presence of solicitor and an appropriate adult.
“He provided a short prepared statement in which he asserted that he did not have anything to say, ‘however, I wish to say that I have not murdered Julia James’.
“He then answered no comment to all questions asked of him.”



 

Wheeler does not accept he intended to kill PCSO, say CPS​



Alison Morgan QC, now wrapping up her opening statement, said: “The defendant is charged with the murder of
Julia James on Apr 27, 2021.
“As you have heard, the defendant now accepts killing Julia James but does not accept the offence of murder.
“Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with the intention of killing that person or causing that person at least really serious harm. “Here, the defendant accepts that he was acting unlawfully when he killed Julia James.
“What he does not accept is that he had the intention to kill her or cause her really serious harm.”




No medical or psychiatric evidence in this case, say CPS​



Ms Morgan continued: “There will be no medical or psychiatric evidence in this case suggesting that he was not capable of forming the intention to murder - for example because he was suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
“That is not an issue in this case.”






Killer waited for ‘vulnerable woman’ to enter the woods​



Closing the opening arguments, Alison Morgan tells the jury: “So how is it that this defendant suggests that when he hit Julia James repeatedly over the head, with a large and heavy metal pole, he did not intend to cause her at least really serious harm, is a matter for him.
“The prosecution will invite you to conclude that the evidence shows beyond any doubt that he obviously had that intention.
“He waited for Julia James, or another vulnerable female, to be in that woods. He waited to ambush her.
“He chased her down. She ran, desperate to get away from her attacker. Unable to outrun him, caught by surprise and wearing wellington boots. He struck her. She fell and broke her wrist.
“Then, when she was faced down to the ground, he struck her again and again and again. She had no chance of survival.
“As he hit her in that way, repeatedly, using that weapon he knew that and he intended it.
Finally, she added: “The key question for the offence of murder in this trial is whether or not, when he attacked Julia James, the defendant intended to kill her or at least cause her really serious harm.
“The prosecution will invite you to conclude that it is clear and obvious that he did.”




 

Court rises​

Court has risen to end the first day of proceedings.
Tomorrow (May 10), the jury will be taken to the scene in Snowdown and the defendant, Callum Wheeler, will not be in court.
Stay tuned with this blog for the latest updates on this case. Bye for now.


 

Smart watch worn by PCSO Julia James captured a spike in her heart rate as she saw her killer in woodland and tried to flee before he beat her to death with a railway jack, court hears.​

 
After Julia James’ body was discovered, a huge police operation was launched and a “considerable police presence” could be seen in the area.
Alison Morgan QC said: “On the day after Julia James was murdered, the defendant went out again carrying the weapon that he had used to murder her. Why he did this is unclear, only he knows the reason.
She added that “goading the police” was a possibility.



bbm

I would want to consider the possibility that he was on the look out for another victim.

Just a thought.
 
snipped from above


and an appropriate adult.


No mental issues and he is age 22, so why the adult ?
The mental illness refers to whether the defendant has a mental illness or other issue that means he is or would be incapable of knowing that his actions would lead to serious harm or death. In other words that he was suffering from some psychiatric illness that means he could not have formed an intention to murder Julia.

He could still require an appropriate adult because he could have other issues— but crucially the court has decided that he can stand trial for murder because he’s capable of understanding that his actions would result in the victims death or serious harm.

He’s trying to plead otherwise— that yes he is responsible for her death but he didn’t intend to kill her or cause her serious harm. Murder technically has to be premeditated even if the intention os formed a split second before the act.
 
The mental illness refers to whether the defendant has a mental illness or other issue that means he is or would be incapable of knowing that his actions would lead to serious harm or death. In other words that he was suffering from some psychiatric illness that means he could not have formed an intention to murder Julia.

He could still require an appropriate adult because he could have other issues— but crucially the court has decided that he can stand trial for murder because he’s capable of understanding that his actions would result in the victims death or serious harm.

He’s trying to plead otherwise— that yes he is responsible for her death but he didn’t intend to kill her or cause her serious harm. Murder technically has to be premeditated even if the intention os formed a split second before the act.
Loitering in the woods with a deadly weapon is a clear intent in my opinion.

But he seems to be a severely disturbed individual.
I wonder what his father has to say about son's mental state.
 
Last edited:
Loitering in the woods with a deadly weapon is a clear intent in my opinion.

But he seems to be a severely disturbed individual.
I wonder what his father has to say about son's mental state.
Oh yes I think his defence is clearly nonsense. He absolutely intended to kill her. And as he’s sitting trial for murder the court hasn’t accepted any insanity plea if he tried ti make one.

I doubt he’ll get very far with his defence. The prosecution have already argued that he himself referred to the railway jack as a weapon. There’s no doubt he assaulted the victim and he’s not even denying that because he can’t. All he has left is to try to claim he didn’t intend to kill ergo he’s not guilty of murder— he’s trying to get a lighter sentence. Or even to attempt to play down in his own mind or to his family that he’s a murderer.

Which is a very calculated thing to do, no?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
1,631
Total visitors
1,703

Forum statistics

Threads
605,481
Messages
18,187,547
Members
233,388
Latest member
Bwitzke
Back
Top