Found Deceased UK - Samantha Eastwood, 28, Stoke-on-Trent, 27 July 2018 *Arrest*

[Yozzer]

I am new, but read everyone's comments with interest as it's such a weird case. I am a single woman, and have been surprised (should be flattered but no I'm not), at builders etc, who have decided that because I'm single, I would want their attentions. They've been very mistaken and it's been very embarrassing for me and for them. Imagine how that would be for someone like MS, who is a friend and married, and what we don't know is, he may be narcissistic and obsessive and not take rejection.

So Here is my theory:

That after Samantha's relationship breakup with John Peake, Michael Stirling became infatuated/obsessed with the thought of Samantha living as a single woman alone. And perhaps even fantasising that she is now single because she has an interest in him.

Taking the theory further, Samantha would inadvertently have given him reason to think she felt something for him by getting him around to build the summer house, which was simply a genuine job she innocently asked someone she knew to help her with. Stirling then sees her everyday and continues to build a fantasy in his head that she has feelings for him. At some point, he tries to make a pass and declare his interest/passion. (This has happened to me with builders. Very embarrassing and awkward forever after.) She will have been surprised and rejected him outright - he's her ex s-i-l's husband. And no doubt, she also has issues with the summerhouse project as well and rejects that also.

Together, she may have rejected Stirling as a man and rejected his work, and probably not wanted to pay him either. He may be worried she'll tell his wife. These combined to make him threaten her - saying she led him on etc. Getting him around to build the summerhouse, being friendly etc. His rejection has festered into hatred. Resulting in him going to her house to await her return from work and confront her, demand payment maybe, at which point he's also attacked her in a rage and/or abducted her after first injuring her.

My 2p worth.

An excellent analysis and I concur with everything you say.

 

[Lola68]

Together, she may have rejected Stirling as a man and rejected his work, and probably not wanted to pay him either. He may be worried she'll tell his wife. These combined to make him threaten her - saying she led him on etc. Getting him around to build the summerhouse, being friendly etc.

Do we know how recently SE told a colleague she was being threatened? If MS was working on the summer house just 2 weeks ago, this would suggest it was a very recent thing that escalated quite quickly. But maybe he kept coming round even though she'd asked him not to so perhaps she'd already reported him? IMO the police reacted VERY quickly - if a teenager goes missing they usually wait 24 hrs before doing anything, so they must have had very good reason to suspect foul play (I very much doubt it was based on the assertion of her colleagues that it was out of character).

Prior history? Previous offender with new identity (admittedly pretty unlikely given he looks v like his father)

 

[Boo68]

I know a lot of people think the shed is too trivial to murder someone over, but people have been killed for a lot less. No matter what you think of the quality of the work, it was still a lot of work. If they hadn't had a falling out about it, I think it would have been finished, as it clearly is not. I would say for some reason she was not happy with the work and was refusing to pay. I think he went there on the day before his holiday to try to collect the money and when she wouldn't comply, he lost it. He may have really needed it. She doesn't seem the type of person who would have become involved with this guy romantically. I was sure it was something more at first but my gut is saying this is what happened. We'll see, but usually when I have these gut feelings about a case, they're usually right on the money.

This is also my gut feeling, as you've said, the shed may seem a trivial matter but if he paid for the materials and spent his time building it, it wouldn't be trivial to him as it's his livelihood.

 

[Coconutmilk]

Can forensics determine whether the tape was placed before or after death? I seem to recall a forensic pathologist was able to determine when tape was placed on Caylee Anthony either before or after death due to enzymes (please correct me if I am wrong)

 

[Koshka]

I know a lot of people think the shed is too trivial to murder someone over, but people have been killed for a lot less. No matter what you think of the quality of the work, it was still a lot of work. If they hadn't had a falling out about it, I think it would have been finished, as it clearly is not. I would say for some reason she was not happy with the work and was refusing to pay. I think he went there on the day before his holiday to try to collect the money and when she wouldn't comply, he lost it. He may have really needed it. She doesn't seem the type of person who would have become involved with this guy romantically. I was sure it was something more at first but my gut is saying this is what happened. We'll see, but usually when I have these gut feelings about a case, they're usually right on the money.

20-some years ago, I went through the kitchen remodel from hell. Before I fired the contractor halfway through the project, one employee had been arrested for DUI and another had been found embezzling from the company. So, you can imagine the quality of the employees and why I gave them the boot (and it was a well-established contractor with a great reputation!). Let me tell you, they were not happy with me, and I can completely see a situation like that going very badly. It is hard to imagine killing over something like that, but when someone's temper flares or someone takes criticism of work personally.....

 

[DaveShu]

With the news of tape on eyes and mouth, I can’t help thinking he did kidnap her first. He lay in wait of her coming home, she screamed so he bundled her into his van, took her to empty Grandparents house, perhaps tied her to a chair. Taped her mouth to stop her screaming again and her eyes, either so he didn’t have to see her looking at him OR so she wouldn’t see what was coming?
Perhaps he did just plan kidnap but it didn’t go as planned so he felt he had to kill her to shut her up? Or, god forbid he taped and bundled her up and buried her unconscious, but alive.....I really so pray that didn’t happen!

I understand what you're saying and why you're thinking that, but if (and she did) disappear on the day he was going on holiday, then kidnap really doesn't make sense.

You can't kidnap someone, leave them tied up for a week or two, then come back and find them alive.

Even if you could - what if someone found them?

So kidnap can't be even remotely possible.

I don't actually understand where the kidnap idea came from, unless it was mentioned in the threats to her (and it's leaked out) - like I'll kidnap you and do horrible things to you if you don't do X, Y, and Z.

But clearly her going missing on the day he went on holiday can't have been "kidnap intent" it has to either have been pre-meditated "I'm going to kill you" intent, or a spur of the moment accidental killing?

And by accidental I mean he was in a rage and did something horrible, not she fell over a roll of masking tape - i.e he's to blame, full stop.

 

[Ironside]

Can forensics determine whether the tape was placed before or after death? I seem to recall a forensic pathologist was able to determine when tape was placed on Caylee Anthony either before or after death due to enzymes (please correct me if I am wrong)

They weren't able to prove when it was put on. The defence actually claimed the duct tape was put on CA after her death when the flesh started to fall off to keep the skull intact.
Anthony defense expert: Duct tape not a murder weapon

Hopefully SE's body being found quickly means there is a lot of forensic evidence.

 

[PaulSimon]

Delete

 

[Yozzer]

Do we know how recently SE told a colleague she was being threatened? If MS was working on the summer house just 2 weeks ago, this would suggest it was a very recent thing that escalated quite quickly. But maybe he kept coming round even though she'd asked him not to so perhaps she'd already reported him? IMO the police reacted VERY quickly - if a teenager goes missing they usually wait 24 hrs before doing anything, so they must have had very good reason to suspect foul play (I very much doubt it was based on the assertion of her colleagues that it was out of character).

Prior history? Previous offender with new identity (admittedly pretty unlikely given he looks v like his father)

SE was a female who lived alone - this made her potentially vulnerable. It is not unusual for teenagers to go off grid and later return home sheepishly, hence why police are reluctant to act too soon without evidence of real risk. Her circumstances, when added to urgent concerns expressed by colleagues, friends and family due to evidence presented would lead police to view SE as High Risk.

 

[Sark06]

Was her phone recovered?

 

[Alyce]

The kidnap wording, used during the first arrest - Sunday July 29, may have been because, at that point, the police strongly suspected that MS had something to do with SEs disappearance but, in the absence of a body, they were not 100% sure that she was dead.

 

[Alyce]

Was her phone recovered?

Police have been very quiet about her phone and not given out any info.

 

[PaulSimon]

I understand what you're saying and why you're thinking that, but if (and she did) disappear on the day he was going on holiday, then kidnap really doesn't make sense.

You can't kidnap someone, leave them tied up for a week or two, then come back and find them alive.

Even if you could - what if someone found them?

So kidnap can't be even remotely possible.

I don't actually understand where the kidnap idea came from, unless it was mentioned in the threats to her (and it's leaked out) - like I'll kidnap you and do horrible things to you if you don't do X, Y, and Z.

But clearly her going missing on the day he went on holiday can't have been "kidnap intent" it has to either have been pre-meditated "I'm going to kill you" intent, or a spur of the moment accidental killing?

And by accidental I mean he was in a rage and did something horrible, not she fell over a roll of masking tape - i.e he's to blame, full stop.

Because if he took her from her house against her will (especially tied up/taped up etc) It is still technically kidnap surely?

His plans for later that day are irrelevant really. You can kidnap someone for 6 weeks or 60 minutes. The fact you’ve taken them against thier will is kidnap.

I’m not great on the technicallites but that’s how I see it I guess

 

[DaveShu]

He was going on holiday that day - not a lot of time to think about kidnapping someone and spiriting them away.

Because if he took her from her house against her will (especially tied up/taped up etc) It is still technically kidnap surely?

His plans for later that day are irrelevant really. You can kidnap someone for 6 weeks or 60 minutes. The fact you’ve taken them against thier will is kidnap.

I’m not great on the technicallites but that’s how I see it I guess

It doesn't make sense to me to "kidnap" someone (when you're going away on vacation in a few hours), unless the underlying intent was murder - that's what I'm getting at - the underlying motive.

Unless he'd called round there for an alternative motive and events took over - but she said she'd been threatened already and to say to a work colleague "if I don't come into work call the Police" - sounds very sinister with a strong undercurrent of premeditation?

 

[Yozzer]

I understand what you're saying and why you're thinking that, but if (and she did) disappear on the day he was going on holiday, then kidnap really doesn't make sense.
...her going missing on the day he went on holiday can't have been "kidnap intent" it has to either have been pre-meditated "I'm going to kill you" intent, or a spur of the moment accidental killing?
And by accidental I mean he was in a rage and did something horrible, not she fell over a roll of masking tape - i.e he's to blame, full stop.

I think the kidnap arrest was to mitigate against damage to privacy if he was subsequently found to be innocent. Easier for police to extricate themselves from arresting for kidnapping then say "oops we got it wrong" than label someone a murderer before a body has been found. Ask Christopher Jefferies.

Perhaps he threatened "I can make you disappear and no-one will ever find you" - then it actually happened and hence there was a rapid response

 

[Mellowmelly]

I am new, but read everyone's comments with interest as it's such a weird case. I am a single woman, and have been surprised (should be flattered but no I'm not), at builders etc, who have decided that because I'm single, I would want their attentions. They've been very mistaken and it's been very embarrassing for me and for them. Imagine how that would be for someone like MS, who is a friend and married, and what we don't know is, he may be narcissistic and obsessive and not take rejection.

So Here is my theory:

That after Samantha's relationship breakup with John Peake, Michael Stirling became infatuated/obsessed with the thought of Samantha living as a single woman alone. And perhaps even fantasising and delusional that she is now single because she has an interest in him.

Taking the theory further, Samantha would inadvertently have given him reason to think she felt something for him by getting him around to build the summer house, which was simply a genuine job she innocently asked someone she knew to help her with. Stirling then sees her everyday and continues to build a fantasy in his head that she has feelings for him. At some point, he tries to make a pass and declare his interest/passion. (This has happened to me with builders. Very embarrassing and awkward forever after.) She will have been surprised and rejected him outright - he's her ex s-i-l's husband. And no doubt, she also has issues with the summerhouse project as well and rejects that also.

Together, she may have rejected Stirling as a man and rejected his work, and probably not wanted to pay him either. He may be worried she'll tell his wife. These combined to make him threaten her - saying she led him on etc. Getting him around to build the summerhouse, being friendly etc. His rejection has festered into hatred. Resulting in him going to her house to await her return from work and confront her, demand payment maybe, at which point he's also attacked her in a rage and/or abducted her after first injuring her.

My 2p worth.

Do we know how recently SE told a colleague she was being threatened? If MS was working on the summer house just 2 weeks ago, this would suggest it was a very recent thing that escalated quite quickly. But maybe he kept coming round even though she'd asked him not to so perhaps she'd already reported him? IMO the police reacted VERY quickly - if a teenager goes missing they usually wait 24 hrs before doing anything, so they must have had very good reason to suspect foul play (I very much doubt it was based on the assertion of her colleagues that it was out of character).

Prior history? Previous offender with new identity (admittedly pretty unlikely given he looks v like his father)

yes maybe she had already logged his threats with the police, hence they knew who to look for.

 

[DaveShu]

I think the kidnap arrest was to mitigate against damage to privacy if he was subsequently found to be innocent. Easier for police to extricate themselves from arresting for kidnapping then say "oops we got it wrong" than label someone a murderer. Ask Christopher Jefferies.

Perhaps he threatened "I can make you disappear and no-one will ever find you" - then it actually happened and hence there was a rapid response

Seriously - do you think the Police in the UK have either the ability to detect, or the foresight to think "hmm let's think of a strategy to mitigate our *advertiser censored* ups if we get it wrong?"

Have you heard of Gaia Pope - it's very recent?

Young girl (i.e. teenager) with mental health and other health problems, who was in love with a particular place - went missing.

Instead of looking for her there, the idiots in the UK police decided to ignore the fact that they were TOLD the timing on the CCTV footage were out by 1 hour (due to daylight saving time), and concluded that she must have been murdered by an 80 (or however year old) woman who needed to be permanently hooked up to an oxygen tank just to stay alive.

Yes, that is the state of the UK police force, and why anything that comes out of their idiotic mouths is exactly what it means word for word.

 

[PaulSimon]

I see what your saying, what was the time they were supposed to be leaving?

Okay so how about this:

Samantha has something on him (affair, advances on her, affair with other woman) she is threatening to expose him, he doesn’t want this to come out and ruin his holiday, he threatens her in the days leading up to this but she’s still adamant she will expose him, due to the threats she tells her colleagues. He has to take this in hand before he goes away and thinks by scaring the crap out of her she will keep quiet, he goes around her house and enters with either a key or she even lets him in herself, things get heated and she screams, he needs to restrain her as it’s all getting out of hand, he can’t risk this all taking place at her home and he ties and tapes her up so she can’t scream or see, she’s bundled into the van and taken to the grandmothers house and at this point everything has gotten out of control, it’s here we’re he either intentionally kills her or she suffocated. In a state he calls his father and friend and they move the body to the quarry, at this point he either confessed to someone (Katie?) or one of the accomplices tip off the police? Or he simply returns and acts normal and CCTV footage is ceased early on and his actions are plainly seen and that’s why not only did they arrest him for kidnap early on but they arrested his accomplices because they too were seen, at this point the body is still missing and they can’t do him for murder, the body is then found and then voila he’s pulled back in.

This would explain why that house was being guarded because it’s a crime scene and it explains why in recent reports cctv will form part of the evidence because they took cctv from this area.

I think the police pretty much know exactly what’s happened and they knew it pretty soon they just needed the missing pieces of the puzzle, the body and a confession of what he actually did to her

 

[truthfinder34]

I think the kidnap arrest was to mitigate against damage to privacy if he was subsequently found to be innocent. Easier for police to extricate themselves from arresting for kidnapping then say "oops we got it wrong" than label someone a murderer. Ask Christopher Jefferies.

Perhaps he threatened "I can make you disappear and no-one will ever find you" - then it actually happened and hence there was a rapid response

I agree with the kidnap arrest. If they arrested him outright for murder they needed proof she wasnt alive which I don't believe they had. I think the kidnap arrest was so they could question him and see where he had been on the day she disappeared. I'm not up on legal technicalities but can you arrest someone twice for the same crime. I've seen cases in the past ( philpot) where they hid microphones in his hotel room and recorded him and his wife talking about the crime for evidence they could of done this with MS hoping he would confess.

 

[Alyce]

I agree with the kidnap arrest. If they arrested him outright for murder they needed proof she wasnt alive which I don't believe they had. I think the kidnap arrest was so they could question him and see where he had been on the day she disappeared. I'm not up on legal technicalities but can you arrest someone twice for the same crime. I've seen cases in the past ( philpot) where they hid microphones in his hotel room and recorded him and his wife talking about the crime for evidence they could of done this with MS hoping he would confess.

Police have up to 96 hours ( dependant on obtaining the right permissions ) to question a suspect.
First arrest was suspicion of kidnap - held for just over 24 hours, so they potentially had plenty of time left on the clock when they made the second arrest - which was then on suspicion of murder.