Still Missing UK - Bernadette Walker, 17, left parent's car, Peterborough, 21 July 2020 *Arrests* #4

[jackal67]

@jackal67 do you not believe ScW was sexually abusing BW?

Because that coming out, and the attempts by both of them to manipulate the disclosure, is surely a very strong motive for murder?

MOO

It's not that I don't believe it, just that Murder still seems an extreme reaction to it. I do believe ScW murdered BW but I think all the planning behind it was down to SaW . The fear of SS seems to be all coming from her . What I don't understand is what was she so scared of that she was willing to sacrifice her daughter .

 

[MissMarbles]

Hello, this is my first post here, but I've been following this case for a while. I am going to be a bit cautious about what I post due to not fully understanding what is an isn't allowed on here (although I will look this up). Also I don't fully understand what would constitute contempt of court in the UK, particularly as our local newspaper isn't allowing comments on the case on Facebook.

I worked out I have probably met the family before, but can't really remember them other than SaW photo looks familiar. I live in the same city.

I have seen many interesting posts on this thread, which echo theories I have also had about locations and routes of the phones. I think the police would have already thought of similar things to us, but very sadly B has still not been found.

Regarding contradictions and not remembering by defendants in cases generally, can this sometimes be due to genuine memory problems through the beginnings of an undiagnosed illness or brain injury or, say, PTSD?

 

[Sooty]

It's not that I don't believe it, just that Murder still seems an extreme reaction to it. I do believe ScW murdered BW but I think all the planning behind it was down to SaW . The fear of SS seems to be all coming from her . What I don't understand is what was she so scared of that she was willing to sacrifice her daughter .

it would have been interesting if she was going to face the prosecution and have to answer those questions, I agree completely.

But it was ultimately him who stood to lose more if the SA allegations became public and authorities were involved. Whichever way he spins it.

MOO

 

[Mercsw]

For Those of you who are doubting there’s enough evidence for a murder conviction - I’m curious enough to ask, what further evidence would you expect to see?

I’m not talking forensics, as whilst that would be expected in most situations, we all seem to be thinking that the act was committed ‘out in the open’.

I know he did it, but it’s innocent until proven guilty. In this case they have no body, no dna, no witnesses, no struggle and everything can be explained…just not by him! His story is mental.

it’s a tough one, but I’m hopeful they will get him. The mother I think is walking free next week and that sticks in the throat

 

[mrazda71]

these are for murder (not yet proven) and they are quite small sentences still. I have a feeling we are going to be very disappointed here if that’s the sort of sentence this carries

Yes, of course the examples I provided were in relation to murder - Sarah's charges are in relation to a murder.

 

[Tanzanite]

It's not that I don't believe it, just that Murder still seems an extreme reaction to it. I do believe ScW murdered BW but I think all the planning behind it was down to SaW . The fear of SS seems to be all coming from her . What I don't understand is what was she so scared of that she was willing to sacrifice her daughter .

I've pondered this. Even happy, contented teenagers can temporarily grow away from their parents while they create their own space in the world. They often need to practice independence and autonomous behaviour while still being in the 'safety' of home. I wonder if BW was in this stage, and coupled with the SA disclosures, a new baby, all cute and adoring/adorable, in the eye of this 'perfect storm,' SaW successfully managed to flick the Off switch on her emotional relationship with BW?

BW could have become - in SaW's mind - not only a threat to her own way of life, but an inconvenient, unsympathetic figure to whom SaW could muster no emotional/maternal connection to. There is little doubt that SaW was involved all the way - imo - and I still cannot figure out why those other charges were dropped.

The lack of forensics seems odd, but BW had been everywhere - cars, lock-up, the home etc, outside of this crime. Any hair/skin/etc could easily be explained away. LA only came into the picture once the trail was cold. If the murder was indeed committed in the open, it's hopeless. No one knows where it happened. Well, two people do, and they've just lied and lied and lied. The only real evidence to get forensic about is the phone data, and hopefully the prosecuting counsel has exploited that as fully as possible.

For what it's worth, I think the maternal 'Off switch' is still firmly off with SaW. Self preservation comes first, and BW is still - imo - the inconvenient figure who is stopping SaW being free and getting on with her life.

This case is a horrible one. The trial has been frustrating. Would we feel as though the charges had more traction if there was more media coverage? Possibly. But even careful, thorough reporting wouldn't change what was happening in the courtroom and with the evidence.

One thought, and forgive my ignorance on such a salient point - if SaW hasn't been charged with more serious crimes, and skips off with her time-served, and THEN more comes to light: a body is found, an adult child goes to the police with an accidental confession from SaW in a year's time, something else...SaW CAN then be charged with those more serious crimes, as she hasn't already been tried on them?

 

[mrazda71]

I've pondered this. Even happy, contented teenagers can temporarily grow away from their parents while they create their own space in the world. They often need to practice independence and autonomous behaviour while still being in the 'safety' of home. I wonder if BW was in this stage, and coupled with the SA disclosures, a new baby, all cute and adoring/adorable, in the eye of this 'perfect storm,' SaW successfully managed to flick the Off switch on her emotional relationship with BW?

BW could have become - in SaW's mind - not only a threat to her own way of life, but an inconvenient, unsympathetic figure to whom SaW could muster no emotional/maternal connection to. There is little doubt that SaW was involved all the way - imo - and I still cannot figure out why those other charges were dropped.

RSBM

I completely agree with this.

Not all mothers are able to love equally.

My youngest daughters best friend all through school - Ellie has 9+ siblings too and mum is agoraphobic. She is genuinely obsessed with breastfeeding, loves pregnancy, birth, babies but as soon as they hit childhood she's disinterested and by 13, 14 she is throwing those babies out of the nest.

It was bemusing to me at me at first, I genuinely couldn't understand how she could be so attentive and loving to the babies and then turn it off - like a switch - once her children hit their teens.

 

[helenvic]

everything can be explained…just not by him!

That's very funny.

 

[Tortoise]

I think she'll be found guilty of knowing Bee was dead.

She knew the right thinking for a mother was that if Bee was truly missing to everyone who knew her she needed to make a missing person report. Even if it was at 3am, that's what a worried mother does. But not 3 days later. She didn't even contact Bee's ex. She knew when she spoke to police that in order to flag up the correct level of risk they would need to know the truth about her having been gone for 3 days without any trace, how vulnerable Bee was without her phone and money, about having been handed over to the man she made disclosures about and who is even now paranoid about anyone reading about it in the papers, who also physically abused her children, yet she hid all of it and lied to police so she couldn't have wanted police to treat Bee as a high risk missing teenager. There is no explaining that. A mother's genuine panic if they know their child is in danger is a force of nature, there is no mistaking it, regardless of the child's age, even adult children. It wouldn't be "Hiya, I'm just phoning because...yeah yeah guys, she's done it before, oh Scott where was it she jumped out?" it'll be "Hiya, my daughter's missing, she has nothing with her, I've spoken to all her friends..."

I have no doubt she knew Bee wasn't at risk, wouldn't be needing her phone, money, or bag, wouldn't be speaking to her friends ever again, wouldn't be reporting the abuse allegations to police or to social services, wasn't at her boyfriend's or any of the friends she fed the recanting allegations to, because she knew Bee was dead.

That's even before considering her lies about being asleep in the car on a 3 hour night trip, which was far more incriminating than sending messages she'd already admitted to. She's lied so much that she can't even face going in the witness box to be questioned and be frank in her own daughter's disappearance, because she knows this isn't about finding Bee alive. She admitted in September she knows she is dead without saying when she discovered that, so why should anyone think it wasn't immediately she got the phone call (if not knowing it was going to happen before it happened) and understand her not taking the witness stand to help the prosecution nail Scott Walker for murdering her daughter.

MOO

 

[jackal67]

it would have been interesting if she was going to face the prosecution and have to answer those questions, I agree completely.

But it was ultimately him who stood to lose more if the SA allegations became public and authorities were involved. Whichever way he spins it.

MOO

Yes I agree it was him he had more to lose which is exactly why I cannot understand why SaW was complicit in it. What did she have to lose that was far more important than her own daughters life?

 

[jackal67]

I've pondered this. Even happy, contented teenagers can temporarily grow away from their parents while they create their own space in the world. They often need to practice independence and autonomous behaviour while still being in the 'safety' of home. I wonder if BW was in this stage, and coupled with the SA disclosures, a new baby, all cute and adoring/adorable, in the eye of this 'perfect storm,' SaW successfully managed to flick the Off switch on her emotional relationship with BW?

BW could have become - in SaW's mind - not only a threat to her own way of life, but an inconvenient, unsympathetic figure to whom SaW could muster no emotional/maternal connection to. There is little doubt that SaW was involved all the way - imo - and I still cannot figure out why those other charges were dropped.

The lack of forensics seems odd, but BW had been everywhere - cars, lock-up, the home etc, outside of this crime. Any hair/skin/etc could easily be explained away. LA only came into the picture once the trail was cold. If the murder was indeed committed in the open, it's hopeless. No one knows where it happened. Well, two people do, and they've just lied and lied and lied. The only real evidence to get forensic about is the phone data, and hopefully the prosecuting counsel has exploited that as fully as possible.

For what it's worth, I think the maternal 'Off switch' is still firmly off with SaW. Self preservation comes first, and BW is still - imo - the inconvenient figure who is stopping SaW being free and getting on with her life.

This case is a horrible one. The trial has been frustrating. Would we feel as though the charges had more traction if there was more media coverage? Possibly. But even careful, thorough reporting wouldn't change what was happening in the courtroom and with the evidence.

One thought, and forgive my ignorance on such a salient point - if SaW hasn't been charged with more serious crimes, and skips off with her time-served, and THEN more comes to light: a body is found, an adult child goes to the police with an accidental confession from SaW in a year's time, something else...SaW CAN then be charged with those more serious crimes, as she hasn't already been tried on them?

Spot on I completely agree with everything you have said here. IMO SaW will walk next week and begin her campaign for sympathy and getting her children back. Judging by the now closed FB group she has plenty of supporters and family members to help her. New boyfriend patiently waiting for her no doubt. I wonder if the maternal 'off' switch has ever really been 'on' except when they were babies. After all she has been having babies nearly every year more or less from a very young age. I doubt she considered BW to be a child as she herself seems to have been a mother at that age. All just MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I've pondered this. Even happy, contented teenagers can temporarily grow away from their parents while they create their own space in the world. They often need to practice independence and autonomous behaviour while still being in the 'safety' of home. I wonder if BW was in this stage, and coupled with the SA disclosures, a new baby, all cute and adoring/adorable, in the eye of this 'perfect storm,' SaW successfully managed to flick the Off switch on her emotional relationship with BW?

BW could have become - in SaW's mind - not only a threat to her own way of life, but an inconvenient, unsympathetic figure to whom SaW could muster no emotional/maternal connection to. There is little doubt that SaW was involved all the way - imo - and I still cannot figure out why those other charges were dropped.

The lack of forensics seems odd, but BW had been everywhere - cars, lock-up, the home etc, outside of this crime. Any hair/skin/etc could easily be explained away. LA only came into the picture once the trail was cold. If the murder was indeed committed in the open, it's hopeless. No one knows where it happened. Well, two people do, and they've just lied and lied and lied. The only real evidence to get forensic about is the phone data, and hopefully the prosecuting counsel has exploited that as fully as possible.

For what it's worth, I think the maternal 'Off switch' is still firmly off with SaW. Self preservation comes first, and BW is still - imo - the inconvenient figure who is stopping SaW being free and getting on with her life.

This case is a horrible one. The trial has been frustrating. Would we feel as though the charges had more traction if there was more media coverage? Possibly. But even careful, thorough reporting wouldn't change what was happening in the courtroom and with the evidence.

One thought, and forgive my ignorance on such a salient point - if SaW hasn't been charged with more serious crimes, and skips off with her time-served, and THEN more comes to light: a body is found, an adult child goes to the police with an accidental confession from SaW in a year's time, something else...SaW CAN then be charged with those more serious crimes, as she hasn't already been tried on them?

Yes she can be tried for murder at a later date but I don't necessarily think it would be the discovery of the body that would influence that, especially since it's never been alleged she was present. If they get more evidence as you say, of her involvement in the planning, maybe ScW has something on her for instance, it could happen. I've also wondered if they're waiting to see if the jury believes she knew of the murder as soon as it happened and mother didn't bat an eyelid, going straight into helping ScW cover it up, testing the water before bringing a murder charge, but I doubt it, because they could have used this trial to test that joint enterprise charge. It's mind boggling.

 

[jackal67]

RSBM

I completely agree with this.

Not all mothers are able to love equally.

My youngest daughters best friend all through school - Ellie has 9+ siblings too and mum is agoraphobic. She is genuinely obsessed with breastfeeding, loves pregnancy, birth, babies but as soon as they hit childhood she's disinterested and by 13, 14 she is throwing those babies out of the nest.

It was bemusing to me at me at first, I genuinely couldn't understand how she could be so attentive and loving to the babies and then turn it off - like a switch - once her children hit their teens.

Me too. I have had the same experience with an extended family member. As soon as the breastfeeding stopped which she loved as always happy to do this sat in a chair watching TV and going on facebook etc. Then she would be pregnant again and the others would have to fend for themselves and the older ones providing childcare.

 

[Legally Bland]

I don't want to distract with other cases but here is the outline of the summing up at the Sarah Wellgreen trial in case it helps anyone.

Judge explains to jurors what they must decide

Judge Christopher Kinch QC explains that read evidence and agreed facts are not in dispute, but jury members must draw their own sensible conclusions on how honest and reliable evidence given by witnesses is. He then gives jurors legal directions.

It’s heard that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove anything. Mr Kinch says:

If you’re not sure she’s dead, then there has been no murder and that’s the end of the case. Ben Lacomba must be found not guilty.”

The prosecution allege that this is a “planned and deliberate” murder. If jurors are unsure that she died at the hands of Lacomba, they must find him not guilty.

Judge Kinch describes it as a “circumstantial case which relies on circumstantial evidence”. In other words, the prosecution claim “the variety of fact that proves the case can’t be explained as coincidence”.

Is Sarah Wellgreen dead? The categories of evidence

Jurors must contemplate two questions when deliberating.

Question 1: “Are we sure that Sarah Jane Wellgreen is dead?” If jurors believes so, then they must answer question 2.

Question 2: “Are we sure that Ben Lacomba intended to and did kill Sarah Jane Wellgreen?”

Jurors must answer yes to both questions to return a guilty verdict, otherwise must return a not guilty verdict. On whether or Sarah Wellgreen is dead, the categories of evidence are:

• She hasn’t been seen since October 9, 2018
• Disappeared without taking her car
• There have been no use of her phones
• There has been no use of no bank accounts in her name
• There has been “a widespread and entirely unsuccessful search for her”

Judge Kinch adds:

The defence do not challenge any of that evidence.

“They challenge whether it is sufficient to make you sure that she has died.”

If Sarah Wellgreen is dead, did Ben Lacomba kill her intentionally?

If the jury decides that Sarah Wellgreen is no longer alive, they must consider whether Ben Lacomba killed her and if he did so intentionally.

The prosecution rely on the following evidence:

• The emergence of plans that Sarah had to buy Lacomba out of the property
• The purchase of a large shovel
• Switching off CCTV cameras
• Parking in car park 2 rather than car park 1
• The route of a particular vehicle tracked by CCTV during the night of October 9/10, 2018
• The flashing of reflective light from car park 2
• The extinguishing of light from the conservatory of 22 Bazes Shaw

Judge Kinch says:

The defence don’t challenge the facts but argue that in some cases the facts don’t bear the interpretation put on them by the prosecution and in some cases can be explained as coincidence.”

UK - UK - Sarah Wellgreen, 46, Kent, 9 Oct 2018 #2 *B. Lacomba guilty*

 

[jackal67]

I think she'll be found guilty of knowing Bee was dead.

She knew the right thinking for a mother was that if Bee was truly missing to everyone who knew her she needed to make a missing person report. Even if it was at 3am, that's what a worried mother does. But not 3 days later. She didn't even contact Bee's ex. She knew when she spoke to police that in order to flag up the correct level of risk they would need to know the truth about her having been gone for 3 days without any trace, how vulnerable Bee was without her phone and money, about having been handed over to the man she made disclosures about and who is even now paranoid about anyone reading about it in the papers, who also physically abused her children, yet she hid all of it and lied to police so she couldn't have wanted police to treat Bee as a high risk missing teenager. There is no explaining that. A mother's genuine panic if they know their child is in danger is a force of nature, there is no mistaking it, regardless of the child's age, even adult children. It wouldn't be "Hiya, I'm just phoning because...yeah yeah guys, she's done it before, oh Scott where was it she jumped out?" it'll be "Hiya, my daughter's missing, she has nothing with her, I've spoken to all her friends..."

I have no doubt she knew Bee wasn't at risk, wouldn't be needing her phone, money, or bag, wouldn't be speaking to her friends ever again, wouldn't be reporting the abuse allegations to police or to social services, wasn't at her boyfriend's or any of the friends she fed the recanting allegations to, because she knew Bee was dead.

That's even before considering her lies about being asleep in the car on a 3 hour night trip, which was far more incriminating than sending messages she'd already admitted to. She's lied so much that she can't even face going in the witness box to be questioned and be frank in her own daughter's disappearance, because she knows this isn't about finding Bee alive. She admitted in September she knows she is dead without saying when she discovered that, so why should anyone think it wasn't immediately she got the phone call (if not knowing it was going to happen before it happened) and understand her not taking the witness stand to help the prosecution nail Scott Walker for murdering her daughter.

MOO

Brilliantly put and so hope you are right and she is found guilty. I hope the prosecutor puts the case across as well as you have here.

 

[MrsBrooks]

I think she'll be found guilty of knowing Bee was dead.

She knew the right thinking for a mother was that if Bee was truly missing to everyone who knew her she needed to make a missing person report. Even if it was at 3am, that's what a worried mother does. But not 3 days later. She didn't even contact Bee's ex. She knew when she spoke to police that in order to flag up the correct level of risk they would need to know the truth about her having been gone for 3 days without any trace, how vulnerable Bee was without her phone and money, about having been handed over to the man she made disclosures about and who is even now paranoid about anyone reading about it in the papers, who also physically abused her children, yet she hid all of it and lied to police so she couldn't have wanted police to treat Bee as a high risk missing teenager. There is no explaining that. A mother's genuine panic if they know their child is in danger is a force of nature, there is no mistaking it, regardless of the child's age, even adult children. It wouldn't be "Hiya, I'm just phoning because...yeah yeah guys, she's done it before, oh Scott where was it she jumped out?" it'll be "Hiya, my daughter's missing, she has nothing with her, I've spoken to all her friends..."

I have no doubt she knew Bee wasn't at risk, wouldn't be needing her phone, money, or bag, wouldn't be speaking to her friends ever again, wouldn't be reporting the abuse allegations to police or to social services, wasn't at her boyfriend's or any of the friends she fed the recanting allegations to, because she knew Bee was dead.

That's even before considering her lies about being asleep in the car on a 3 hour night trip, which was far more incriminating than sending messages she'd already admitted to. She's lied so much that she can't even face going in the witness box to be questioned and be frank in her own daughter's disappearance, because she knows this isn't about finding Bee alive. She admitted in September she knows she is dead without saying when she discovered that, so why should anyone think it wasn't immediately she got the phone call (if not knowing it was going to happen before it happened) and understand her not taking the witness stand to help the prosecution nail Scott Walker for murdering her daughter.

MOO

Just when my doubts start creeping in, you tortoise always seem to completely convince me otherwise that: 1, they are both guilty and 2, there is absolutely no chance of them walking free!( over the past couple days I really believed they would walk away free- and it angered me).

You really should be part of the prosecution because I find your arguments overwhelmingly convincing.

 

[Tortoise]

Just when my doubts start creeping in, you tortoise always seem to completely convince me otherwise that: 1, they are both guilty and 2, there is absolutely no chance of them walking free!( over the past couple days I really believed they would walk away free- and it angered me).

You really should be part of the prosecution because I find your arguments overwhelmingly convincing.

There will always be rogue juries, but when it happens it can't be predicted and I don't think there's any point looking at a case from the point of view that someone isn't going to see something in what I would deem to be a reasonable light (others may think finding any alternative explanation for every piece of evidence is reasonable, I don't, when there is this quantity of material and seen all together what picture it paints). Plus the jury has heard far more than we've been given in the papers, and seen the strange behaviour of defendants only wanting to give their side and step down or not enter the box at all, when the prosecution wants answers to the questions the jury will have. Yes there is an outside chance the jury will vote not guilty, but my prediction is that is unlikely. All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

"There is a perception that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, however, Lord Hewart CJ in the decision of R v Donovan (1930) 21 Cr App R.20 stated:

"It has been said that the evidence against the applicants is circumstantial: so it is, but circumstantial evidence is very often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial."

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/introduction/#circumstantial-evidence


"the cumulative effect of a number of separate pieces of circumstantial evidence is to increase the weight of that evidence. This is often expressed through the use of the ‘rope analogy’: imagine each piece of circumstantial evidence as a strand of a rope. One strand on its own is weak and insufficient to carry a weight, but several strands together increase the strength of the rope which may then carry more weight. In R v. Exall and others, 8 Pollock CB approves the rope analogy"

http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/20337/excerpt/9781107020337_excerpt.pdf

 

[Atoz]

I agree with pretty much all of what your saying, especially the laying of the false trail. IMO though he slipped up mentioning the horses but obviously all MOO - we shall agree to disagree for now but I respect yours and everyones opinons Sorry started this message wanting to justify more but tiredness has hit!

I see where you're coming from, and perhaps there is a grain of truth in it.

But I think it more likely a fabrication as it's in line with his general interest in horses and my mind immediately springs back to what I consider his previous lie about just going to a random residential street to read the horse racing papers.

Horses just seem to be familiar and safe ground for him to create what he considers are plausible scenarios.

 

[worth2]

I keep wondering, if I were on the jury could I say guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I obviously think he (and SaW) did it.