I had not thought of that. That might be why her dad did not want to cooperate with Martin Bright -- he didn't really want Martin digging and stirring up stuff, I can understand that in any case. If his understanding is that Ruth is safe and well somewhere, it would be a bad idea to have that dug up. He clearly didn't think that all the digging and attention would solve the case as it were.
And it just brings more media attention - if you have to admit now that you knew for a long time that she was ok, then people probably would be pi**ed off. There could be a wider family who don't know - they'd be pretty annoyed. Bet to say nothing. Plus with no appeals, no talking to the press etc. you can't be accused of wasting anyone's time.
That is what made me suspicious that he might know something more. He and Ruth were close. I can imagine, although probably not fully, how painful it must have been for him if she had disappeared if he didn't know. Perhaps he feels that pain now and his reaction was to distance himself from that. In some ways you might move on and in others, you just would not and you might want to emotionally shield yourself. Regarding Catherine, she clearly cares deeply about Ruth and has been very affected by her disappearance and why that happened, and I can understand why she has gone to the media. I hope it helps.
I read a book by a woman called Shelley Mckenney (I think?) who ran away when she was in her early 20s from London to Birmingham to escape her family. It is worth reading for insights into being a missing person. Shelley was far more streetwise than Ruth and survived but it was a scary read. People -- men -- preyed on young women like Shelley and she escaped from one who drugged her and tried to traffic her. She had no recourse or defence because she was young and missing from home and wanted to avoid her family finding her. But she got jobs and eventually a home after having a baby. It made me think of Ruth and how life might not have been very easy for her at all if she did run away,she would have been extremely vulnerable.
Well that depends. Ruth was a smart girl, she may have already sorted lodgings and a job. Back then it was so easy to get casual work and somewhere to live in London. The city wasn't like it is now, huge parts still had flats and houses full of youngsters sharing, either those working or studying in the city. It was a great time. This is before everything became gentrified. You could pick up a copy of Time Out or Loot or a free paper and there'd be loads of adverts for house shares. You'd bowl up, if the people who were there liked you you were in. You paid cash and that was it. Pub and cafe jobs were in abundance too, and most were cash in hand too. A lot of employers didn't need a NI number because you weren't on the books. Ruth had a personality years ahead of her age, was polite and well spoken and although people said she was shy, I bet she could've quite easily held a conversation - perfect traits for these kind of jobs. She may not have been earning a fortune, but she would've been safe and well.
Did she travel to London (or somewhere else - we presume London, but it could've been anywhere) in the weeks before she disappeared? We'll likely never know. Being a sixth former she didn't ned to go to school all day/every day, and had lots of social activities, so could've quite easily had sipped away for a few hours.
I get your point - but that's kids who run away with no money, and on the spur of the moment. This was a smart girl, who had probably been saving money (and may have borrowed from friends too) and this wasn't done on a whim, she would've spent a long time setting it up. When she left she knew she wasn't coming back.
As another poster suggested maybe Ruth didn't like having her photo taken.
Her parents putting out the photo of her in her school uniform where she looks very young was an odd choice but they are teachers and perhaps they wanted a photo that they thought represented Ruth. It is impossible to know. Maybe that is just the picture they had readily to hand in their distress.
Possibly - but don't the police always ask for a recent photo? Even her pic on the official missing poster is probably about 4 years old (if not more).
I think that the location of the station has changed since 1996 and that it used to be closer to the high street, or the location of the library has changed. One has changed. Another poster on here or Facebook explained it. Her choice of location for getting the taxi makes perfect sense then.
It was the library, and it has, but not by much. The high street would've been far quicker to get too, especially as it was cold and she had no coat. The station I believe had importance, that being she was checking on train info.
