Has there been anything in MSM indicating that the laptop was Stephanie's? I've seen a few comments here referring to it as hers, but as far as I have read, thst hasn't been confirmed. It could be his laptop, it could have contained evidence...
The cleaning firm that *employed Stanford said he passed compulsory police and employment checks before he began working for them last October. It is understood the police checks only look at a persons criminal record in Australia and not Holland, where Stanford lived until 13 months ago. The checks cleared him to work with children at Leeton High School.
...
A spokesman for the Office of the Childrens Guardian said: A NSW Working With Children Check is a prerequisite for anyone in child-related work in NSW. It involves a *national criminal history check and review of findings of workplace misconduct.
The result of a Working With Children Check is either a clearance to work with children for five years, or a bar against working with children. Cleared applicants are subject to continuous checking for relevant offences by NSW Police, and relevant new records may lead to a clearance being revoked.'
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/stephanie-scotts-accused-killer-vincent-stanford-allegedly-had-photos-of-a-burnt-body/story-fni0cx12-1227297895294
No need to be rude...I'm not sure why you don't seem to get this. He killed her at school. Put her in the back of his car (hence the blood). Drove her car to the farm, then walked back to the school to his car. Then he is free to dispose of the body literally anywhere.
Has there been anything in MSM indicating that the laptop was Stephanie's? I've seen a few comments here referring to it as hers, but as far as I have read, thst hasn't been confirmed. It could be his laptop, it could have contained evidence...
Has there been anything in MSM indicating that the laptop was Stephanie's? I've seen a few comments here referring to it as hers, but as far as I have read, thst hasn't been confirmed. It could be his laptop, it could have contained evidence...
I keep having this horrible thought. Imagine if he decided to confess where the body was tomorrow? That would just be unimaginable.
Leeton remembers Stephanie Scott, with respect
By Joshua Lang
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-10/lang-leeton-remembers-stephanie-scott-with-respect/6382550
I keep having this horrible thought. Imagine if he decided to confess where the body was tomorrow? That would just be unimaginable.
Yeah, the logistics around this, with the two cars and bits and pieces of evidence scattered all over the place, and other things not hidden well at all ... is very confusing!I find this really disturbing
So a man who had no history at all until 13 months ago was deemed eligible to work around children. :banghead:
I don't get it. Why would he leave blood all over the back of his car when he had access to her car? The only other thing they have is a photo of a partially burned body that hasn't been ID'd. How did he manage 2 cars?
Is there a connection to the person in a white ute dumping a laptop into the canal near the place where Stephanie's car was found? Does that match the description of Stanford's car?
I won't be sure they have the killer until forensics are back. There may be more to this.
(Maybe I have been watching too many episodes of "Unusual Suspects")
This is the worst case ever, just the worst. I can't believe he wont even tell them where she is. I just can't even stand the news reports on this one, just rips your heart out. I can't help thinking of Jill M too, and I wonder if her husband will reach out to Stephanie's fiance, I tend to hope so, nobody else could understand what each has gone though![]()
![]()
![]()
Yep. I keep having an inkling this was slightly personal. I dont think it was planned but i think the motive will be interesting.Ugh I really hope he doesn't :maddening:
If he does, I think that says a lot about this murder.
Beautiful article.
Oh yes, I think he has definitely thrown it in there, but my thinking is that it may not necessarily be hers....it may have been his, and there was something on it he wanted to get rid of...I'm just keeping an open mind right now. I think there is a great deal that isn't being reported in MSM.IIRC they haven't said that it is definite yet, but a guy in a white helix dual cab was seen throwing a red laptop/iPad into the channel, and the photo of the police divers retrieving it clearly shows a red laptop/iPad. It seems like too much of a coincidence IMO.
Maybe just for the fact that, having the keys, he would have been a person who could have let her in to whatever part of the school she needed to be in? So he could have been a/the person she would have had contact with in some form, to get into the school.But it doesn't make any sense for her to have picked the keys up from him. Why would the police say that items linked to Stephanie were found at his house - including the keys she borrowed - if he owned (or was in charge of) them? Why would that be newsworthy? In a murder investigation, being in possession of your own keys is not something the police will think is significant.