GUILTY UK - Katie Rough, 7, killed by teen, Woodthorpe, York, 10 Jan 2017

[JerricaBenton]

Tallmansix, great summary of known facts & info from the police appeal.

 

[Spellbound]

No link, no post. Until someone posts a link with the photo, the discussion is nixed.

The wedding photo with family members' faces pixilated can be seen at:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heartbroken-dad-katie-rough-pays-9600824

 

[Rosegold68]

Maybe the police were searching for discarded replacement Stanley knife blades

Or a phone. Could Katie have had a mobile? She was young but had a fb account. Maybe an old phone had been upgraded and given to her? Her killer maybe called her to get her to the field

 

[Cherwell]

And as far as I can tell, the photos of the geocache family don't correspond with anybody allegedly involved with the case. Innocent party.

I disagree. The photos are a few years old and resemble some of the older children.

I don't know why you say "innocent party". I think it shows that this was a happy family enjoying healthy and stimulating outdoor pursuits. So many kids these days spend all their time indoors playing computer games.

My earlier post about geocaching seems to have gone I thought it was a reasonable suggestion for why they might have gone where they did.

 

[Rosegold68]

Yep. Original geocache post with link has gone

 

[Ruthbullock]

This thread is getting a bit uncomfortable now

This whole thread is uncomfortable. Please be aware of the contempt of court rules within the UK. This is an active and ongoing trial and as such all press releases today on social media have had the following warning attached.
https://en-gb.facebook.com/notes/so...ia-users-contempt-of-court/10153105740087336/
apologies it is a facebook direct advisory quote but otherwise I would have had to link several sources.

 

[mrazda71]

I don't think there is a mod following any thread all the time, but checking frequently. Best way is to alert a mod by clicking the red triangle below the post you question and ask a mod to check the thread/post for appropriatness. It stays anonymous, and is better than bickering or risking closing a thresd down.
Hope that helps.

I'm using via Tapatalk on a phone so no red triangle but we do have a report option which I've used at times.

I've been on websleuth a few years now and there's definitely more admin/mod wise goes on in UK nighttime

 

[Cherwell]

I think the geocache info might be important. If it's the families 'cache' then Katie may have been checking on it. There seems to be recent activity

Is it located near where her body was found?

Yes and no. It's on the other side of a very large field from the recreation ground where she was found, so not quickly accessible from there, given that the light was failing. My thought was that the idea might have been to place another cache somewhere, perhaps in the recreation ground.

 

[tallmansix]

I disagree. The photos are a few years old and resemble some of the older children.

I don't know why you say "innocent party". I think it shows that this was a happy family enjoying healthy and stimulating outdoor pursuits. So many kids these days spend all their time indoors playing computer games.

My earlier post about geocaching seems to have gone I thought it was a reasonable suggestion for why they might have gone where they did.

The geocache profile belongs to a guy called 'Pete' which doesn't correpsond to suggestions that the profile belonged to Katie's father, Paul. The cache isn't accessible from the crime scene, it is only accessible by road if you look at the map.

 

[Cherwell]

Yep. Original geocache post with link has gone

I really can't see what was wrong with that. I looked on the geocaching site to see if there were any caches near where Katie was found. And to my surprise there was a cache not far away, which appears to have been placed by her father for her.

There is no reference to the accused. Surely this is harmless?

 

[Spellbound]

This whole thread is uncomfortable. Please be aware of the contempt of court rules within the UK. This is an active and ongoing trial and as such all press releases today on social media have had the following warning attached.
https://en-gb.facebook.com/notes/so...ia-users-contempt-of-court/10153105740087336/
apologies it is a facebook direct advisory quote but otherwise I would have had to link several sources.

Since this is from the South Yorkshire Police page, I will risk a mod deleting this, as it seems very important

PLEASE READ, think when posting:


[h=2]ADVICE TO SOCIAL MEDIA USERS - CONTEMPT OF COURT[/h]
August 18, 2015 at 6:23 am

We’ve noted that several Facebook users have posted comments which may be in contempt of court on some of our stories about ‘active’ cases.
Any material which could influence members of the jury in an ongoing or imminent trial is deemed as being in contempt of court and is punishable in a court of law.
These comments have included:
- references to someone’s previous convictions
- statements about a person’s character
- evidence seeming to link a person directly to the crime of which they have been accused
- other suggestions that the person is guilty
When proceedings are ‘active’, the above content CANNOT be posted and the Facebook user is in contempt of court. Proceedings are ‘active’ when:
- a person is charged
- a person has been arrested
- an arrest warrant is issued
- a summons is issued

If you hold such information you should pass it to the police by calling 101 and quoting the relevant incident number.
While we welcome comments and healthy discussion on our Facebook page, we request that you consider your comments carefully before posting them to a public site such as this. Nothing should be posted on a public site that would contravene the law if stated in public.
The Contempt of Court Act protects the justice process and the fundamental principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
We monitor our Facebook page closely and any comments which are in contempt of court will be noted and removed. They may also be brought to the attention of the prosecution, the defence and the judge in the case.
The BBC has a useful guide to contempt of court for journalists, which is also relevant to social media users. You can read this by clicking the link below. http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

 

[Cherwell]

The geocache profile belongs to a guy called 'Pete' which doesn't correpsond to suggestions that the profile belonged to Katie's father, Paul. The cache isn't accessible from the crime scene, it is only accessible by road if you look at the map.

I don't know where you're seeing "Pete". Anyway, I haven't suggested they were going to that cache.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Thing is, we can try and sleuth this to our hearts content but I really doubt that we're gonna get any updates from the police, press or family. It will be like the Liz & Katie Edwards case. We are not legally allowed to mention the key parts of the case and it won't even all come out at trial.

Nothing to see here, folks. Plenty of other cases that need help.

 

[tallmansix]

I really can't see what was wrong with that. I looked on the geocaching site to see if there were any caches near where Katie was found. And to my surprise there was a cache not far away, which appears to have been placed by her father for her.

There is no reference to the accused. Surely this is harmless?

One of the children in the Geocache profile that you say resemble Katie's siblings is called K**** and despite all the childrens names being mentioned at some point on the internet, that name has never come up.

 

[Rosegold68]

'Pete' could be another family member I suppose

 

[LibraStarr]

I really can't see what was wrong with that. I looked on the geocaching site to see if there were any caches near where Katie was found. And to my surprise there was a cache not far away, which appears to have been placed by her father for her.

There is no reference to the accused. Surely this is harmless?

Sleuthing the family? That may be why it was removed or because it could be a person who may not be linked to this family. Not really sure, just a suggestion...

One of the children in the Geocache profile that you say resemble Katie's siblings is called K**** and despite all the childrens names being mentioned at some point on the internet, that name has never come up.

Actually, I do think there is a family member with that name.

'P***' could be another family member I suppose

I believe there is a family member with that name as well.


Who the profile belongs to really doesn't matter (IMO) and I'm not sure it was the the point of the first post regarding geocaching. I think the original post was just to say geocaching could be a reason why Katie was where she was. (not that I really know what they were thinking... it's JMO)

 

[Cherwell]

You are right, Libra. I thought that geocaching could be a good explanation for why a child might go to a place with no other apparent attractions. And it does seem to be something the family does.

I don't think it's "sleuthing" the family, it's just something I came across while exploring the theory which seemed to confirm the possibility.
Anyway, it's there for anyone to find.

 

[Cherwell]

I think it is relevant that the family were into geocaching. Someone could have said to Katie, "Come with me and I'll show you a really good cache with lots of swaps in it," and I bet she would have happily gone along.

Just theorising.

 

[nothinonyou]

sorry but what's geocatching? sounds like Pokemon Go :laughing:

 

[Cherwell]

sorry but what's geocatching? sounds like Pokemon Go :laughing:

It is a bit, except that people find real things, not imaginary ones. Typically a plastic box with some small toys or nicknacks in. If you take something out, you are expected to leave something in its place.

I did explain in my original post which was removed. Just go to geocaching, and you can search the site for caches in any area.
Mostly they are just found by using GPS and then searching, but for some you need to solve puzzles to get the coordinates. It is popular with families as it is something the whole family can do together and get out and about.