UK UK - Ruth Wilson, 16, Dorking, 27 Nov 1995

[TheRockingRev]

Catching up on this thread, I do think she ran away but I believe she came to harm, probably abducted outside the pub or on the Reigate Road

Other people have mentioned Bellfield, he is my No1 suspect, was known to operate in Surrey

She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time

We may never know - it does seem a long shot though that someone just happened to be cruising in that area, at a time when there would've been a fair bit of traffic and it happened to a girl who had every motive to run away. JMO - but that seems way off the mark.

 

[alb1on]

We may never know - it does seem a long shot though that someone just happened to be cruising in that area, at a time when there would've been a fair bit of traffic and it happened to a girl who had every motive to run away. JMO - but that seems way off the mark.

It is very unlikely anyone would be just cruising on that road. It is very much away from the main roads and carries only small traffic flow even today, mainly for locals. Even those visiting Box Hill (unlikely after dark in November) usually enter and exit via the Dorking/Leatherhead road without ever going on beyond the car parks. If someone was up there thinking about abduction it is overwhelmingly probable they did so with preplanning.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I'm in no doubt that there was no abduction. Several things still stand out. 1). The friend who had her father turn up and offer large sums of money to, in order to make him reveal what had happened. If this story is true, and certainly all of the friends statements seem fairly accurate, then it does mean that she did run away with help from others. If the family thought some harm had come to her, they surely weren't going to start offering money to her friends. That's just ridiculous and makes no sense.
2). The footage from the newsagents. I still have only seen the still from it (does anyone know where the full footage can be found?) but it's a big coincidence that it occurred one year to the day Ruth vanished, the front of the papers apparently were running her story and that the person became upset in the shop. Now, it could be something harmless, but what if she did return back to her hometown one year on to see her friends? If this whole disappearing act was a big two fingers up at the parents, then it would make sense that she would sneak back as another two fingers up at them. Maybe she missed her town, wanted to see her old house - who knows. It may be that even her friends didn't know she was back in town (I'll get back to that in a minute).
Certainly if you had planned a big escape, gone through with and got away with it, then it may be cathartic to go back and get things out of your system. But Ruth still would've been a teenager then, and perhaps the emotions would've just caught up with her. Stuck between a rock and a hard place - the home she loved, the family she didn't. She'd gone too far to come back.
Friends did say that she was a drama queen, and not wanting to judge her, perhaps she was, perhaps what she was dealing with at home wasn't that much at all - but was too much for her. I guess a bombshell such as the suicide of her mother would've been like an H-Bomb going off in her adolescent mind. And although she seemed strong and calm, perhaps she wasn't. As is often proved, sometimes the strongest on the surface are the most vulnerable underneath.

Anyway getting back to her friends. Her parents were adamant that it was her in the video (btw - I can't make out too much in the still, but does the person have short hair? You guess she may have cut it to disguise herself afterwards. The what looks like a big checked shirt does tie in with the stated unconventional dress sense she was supposed to have had) but perhaps the reason her friends were quick to dismiss it was either a). they did know she was back in town and wanted hide the fact that they knew it or b). they didn't know she was back but kept up their vow of silence they'd promised her before she vanished.

I know that some will say that why would you go into a shop that had CCTV. Well firstly do we know what time of the day it was? At that time of the year after 3:30pm it can be dark. Plus did she know it had CCTV? In 1996 it wasn't that common. That shop may not have had it a year before - or unlike today you wouldn't have expected it in a small shop (it really was a different era for surveillance) so you most likely wouldn't have even had it cross your mind.

 

[alb1on]

I'm in no doubt that there was no abduction. Several things still stand out. 1). The friend who had her father turn up and offer large sums of money to, in order to make him reveal what had happened. If this story is true, and certainly all of the friends statements seem fairly accurate, then it does mean that she did run away with help from others. If the family thought some harm had come to her, they surely weren't going to start offering money to her friends. That's just ridiculous and makes no sense.
2). The footage from the newsagents. I still have only seen the still from it (does anyone know where the full footage can be found?) but it's a big coincidence that it occurred one year to the day Ruth vanished, the front of the papers apparently were running her story and that the person became upset in the shop. Now, it could be something harmless, but what if she did return back to her hometown one year on to see her friends? If this whole disappearing act was a big two fingers up at the parents, then it would make sense that she would sneak back as another two fingers up at them. Maybe she missed her town, wanted to see her old house - who knows. It may be that even her friends didn't know she was back in town (I'll get back to that in a minute).
Certainly if you had planned a big escape, gone through with and got away with it, then it may be cathartic to go back and get things out of your system. But Ruth still would've been a teenager then, and perhaps the emotions would've just caught up with her. Stuck between a rock and a hard place - the home she loved, the family she didn't. She'd gone too far to come back.
Friends did say that she was a drama queen, and not wanting to judge her, perhaps she was, perhaps what she was dealing with at home wasn't that much at all - but was too much for her. I guess a bombshell such as the suicide of her mother would've been like an H-Bomb going off in her adolescent mind. And although she seemed strong and calm, perhaps she wasn't. As is often proved, sometimes the strongest on the surface are the most vulnerable underneath.

Anyway getting back to her friends. Her parents were adamant that it was her in the video (btw - I can't make out too much in the still, but does the person have short hair? You guess she may have cut it to disguise herself afterwards. The what looks like a big checked shirt does tie in with the stated unconventional dress sense she was supposed to have had) but perhaps the reason her friends were quick to dismiss it was either a). they did know she was back in town and wanted hide the fact that they knew it or b). they didn't know she was back but kept up their vow of silence they'd promised her before she vanished.

I know that some will say that why would you go into a shop that had CCTV. Well firstly do we know what time of the day it was? At that time of the year after 3:30pm it can be dark. Plus did she know it had CCTV? In 1996 it wasn't that common. That shop may not have had it a year before - or unlike today you wouldn't have expected it in a small shop (it really was a different era for surveillance) so you most likely wouldn't have even had it cross your mind.

The problem with the sighting in the shop is as I have said before - the size of Dorking and location of such shops. I have not seen the specific shop identified but I can only think of one such shop which is not on the High Street or an extension of it, and that one is quite close (3/400 yards). The chances of visiting Dorking (a small town), especially the High Street, and bumping into someone you know is pretty high. I live a few miles away, visit the town a few times a year and still see people I know every time I visit. If that were her in the shop I would have expected other reports from people who saw her and, if it was one of those shops either in the High Street or where she would have needed to cross it I would also have expected other cctv to have picked her up (such as that outside banks and building societies). And if she returned to visit by train there was cctv at the station and possibly on the trains as well (I know it was on tube trains at that time - not sure about Southern). I would expect all of those possibilities to have been checked by police on receiving the report and that no other sightings were released makes me assume they found nothing.

 

[TheRockingRev]

The problem with the sighting in the shop is as I have said before - the size of Dorking and location of such shops. I have not seen the specific shop identified but I can only think of one such shop which is not on the High Street or an extension of it, and that one is quite close (3/400 yards). The chances of visiting Dorking (a small town), especially the High Street, and bumping into someone you know is pretty high. I live a few miles away, visit the town a few times a year and still see people I know every time I visit. If that were her in the shop I would have expected other reports from people who saw her and, if it was one of those shops either in the High Street or where she would have needed to cross it I would also have expected other cctv to have picked her up (such as that outside banks and building societies). And if she returned to visit by train there was cctv at the station and possibly on the trains as well (I know it was on tube trains at that time - not sure about Southern). I would expect all of those possibilities to have been checked by police on receiving the report and that no other sightings were released makes me assume they found nothing.

I know Dorking too, so know how small a place it is, but of course there are a few things which we don't necessarily know - 1). time of day - if it was early or late it could be dark, giving a certain degree of disguise 2). mode of transport, yes on foot it would be difficult to avoid being seen, but as my post earlier, if she was aided by friends could there have been a car right outside the shop for her to get in and out of?
3). CCTV - this is 1996, even at that time there wasn't a huge amount of CCTV even in large cities. When did the shopkeeper release the footage and when did the parents view it? The earliest quote from them regarding it is January 7th - that's a long time afterwards. Remember in 1996 the CCTV there was, wasn't kept for long and primarily on tape, which was re-used. If she did take a car journey then there wouldn't be any at the train station anyway.
4). On the subject of CCTV - 10 years after Ruth vanished, so too did Andrew Gosden. The entire CCTV investigation was messed up by the police, despite there being more of it. It was 3 weeks before they picked Andrew up on CCTV at Kings Cross, and by then subsequent footage had been lost.
Did the police take the sighting of Ruth seriously? As I've said, how long was it before they viewed it and got her family to view it? It hardly seems like it was quick. To be honest, did they take it seriously? Up until that point it seems that they were looking for a corpse rather than a live person, so it could've been just seen as another random sighting (these were coming in as far away as Canada) and being that it was on the anniversary, in the same town they may have not taken it seriously - as we know although they do a good job, many cases have been scuppered by the faults of the police.

Also this is interesting - Speaking on the tenth anniversary of Wilson's disappearance, Sgt Shane Craven, head of East Surrey police's missing persons team, stated that "In the weeks following Ruth’s disappearance there were some fairly reliable sightings of her in the Dorking area by people who knew her well." - was there any CCTV that was in operation that could've been checked by the police at that time, especially as a few weeks after it was 'still hot'?' There doesn't seem to be any mention of it, I think the likelihood is that at the time, and even by a year later, there was very little CCTV.
The newsagent probably had it because private businesses bought their own, and small shops were always at risk of shoplifters, but in streets it was still quite rare. Even the banks and building societies you mention would have had it only on the inside of their premises.

 

[alb1on]

I know Dorking too, so know how small a place it is, but of course there are a few things which we don't necessarily know - 1). time of day - if it was early or late it could be dark, giving a certain degree of disguise 2). mode of transport, yes on foot it would be difficult to avoid being seen, but as my post earlier, if she was aided by friends could there have been a car right outside the shop for her to get in and out of?
3). CCTV - this is 1996, even at that time there wasn't a huge amount of CCTV even in large cities. When did the shopkeeper release the footage and when did the parents view it? The earliest quote from them regarding it is January 7th - that's a long time afterwards. Remember in 1996 the CCTV there was, wasn't kept for long and primarily on tape, which was re-used. If she did take a car journey then there wouldn't be any at the train station anyway.
4). On the subject of CCTV - 10 years after Ruth vanished, so too did Andrew Gosden. The entire CCTV investigation was messed up by the police, despite there being more of it. It was 3 weeks before they picked Andrew up on CCTV at Kings Cross, and by then subsequent footage had been lost.
Did the police take the sighting of Ruth seriously? As I've said, how long was it before they viewed it and got her family to view it? It hardly seems like it was quick. To be honest, did they take it seriously? Up until that point it seems that they were looking for a corpse rather than a live person, so it could've been just seen as another random sighting (these were coming in as far away as Canada) and being that it was on the anniversary, in the same town they may have not taken it seriously - as we know although they do a good job, many cases have been scuppered by the faults of the police.

Also this is interesting - Speaking on the tenth anniversary of Wilson's disappearance, Sgt Shane Craven, head of East Surrey police's missing persons team, stated that "In the weeks following Ruth’s disappearance there were some fairly reliable sightings of her in the Dorking area by people who knew her well." - was there any CCTV that was in operation that could've been checked by the police at that time, especially as a few weeks after it was 'still hot'?' There doesn't seem to be any mention of it, I think the likelihood is that at the time, and even by a year later, there was very little CCTV.
The newsagent probably had it because private businesses bought their own, and small shops were always at risk of shoplifters, but in streets it was still quite rare. Even the banks and building societies you mention would have had it only on the inside of their premises.

I think you are stretching credibility to support the shop sighting. It is not impossible but unlikely on the balance of evidence. I spent nearly 40 years in insurance, including as a director of a bank subsidiary and working with many building societies and can assure you that many had external as well as internal cctv even in the 90s. I also cannot see why any friends would deliver her in a car to a small shop, allow her to be seen and then drive her away with no other apparent purpose, particularly when it would have been easy for anyone with her to go into the shop instead of her. The comments about sightings immediately post her disappearance reinforce the doubts about the shop sighting. If the police had anything other than that isolated report why would they not disclose it when they did so with previous reports? My conclusion is that there were no corroborating reports or evidence for the shop sighting. None of this suggests a particular resolution. I am quite prepared to think she chose to disappear and remains alive, but cannot see any current evidence for or against other than that surrounding the actual disappearance and subsequent lack of a body on Box Hill.
The big problem with this case is both the lack of evidence and the constant flip flopping of some with a vested interest in the case, exemplified by Mark Williams Thomas who has veered from claiming she is on Box Hill to her not being on Box Hill. All that we can say at present is that certain features of the case look more or less likely and I would summarise them as;

• She is unlikely to be on Box Hill due to the searches, subsequent use of the hill by walkers and the 2012 Olympic crowds.
• She was unlikely to have been the victim of an opportunistic abduction when she was dropped off by the taxi due to the road being very much for locals. But that does not rule out a preplanned abduction based on her relying on the wrong person.
• She certainly intended to disappear based on her actions. The question is whether she had the resources and help to change identity effectively. I am 50/50 on that one. It could be done at that time but did need good planning.
• It is unlikely that the parents were either involved or have subsequent knowledge of her. I do not find their behaviour other than at one end of families in similar situations. Some do shun publicity, especially when family skeletons are uncovered.
• It is possible (rather than probable) a friend or friends have information but the failure of police to identify such a friend and the lack of any leaks seems to reduce the chances with each passing year.

The only thing I am sure about in this case is that getting too attached to one theory is a triumph of hope in the absence of evidence.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I think you are stretching credibility to support the shop sighting. It is not impossible but unlikely on the balance of evidence.

Absolutely - but also not impossible. The other side to this is if it wasn't her, who was it who went into a newsagents shop and became emotional after seeing the papers carrying this story? As you have said, and as I am aware, Dorking is a fairly small town. Not somewhere a youngster suddenly calls into on the off chance. So if it wasn't Ruth - who was it? Why did that person not come forward following a media campaign? Why did they never return to the shop? Why did no-one else recognise them? Why did they not come forward? - the question remains the same, how long after was this sighting properly looked at, and what other footage did they look at?

I spent nearly 40 years in insurance, including as a director of a bank subsidiary and working with many building societies and can assure you that many had external as well as internal cctv even in the 90s.

No doubt. But did the ones in Dorking? If they did, was the footage looked at? Although I trust your professional opinion, CCTV in the 90s was still not that common. Remember too that even now not all of the London Underground has CCTV.

I also cannot see why any friends would deliver her in a car to a small shop, allow her to be seen and then drive her away with no other apparent purpose, particularly when it would have been easy for anyone with her to go into the shop instead of her.

Well there was a purpose the papers. If she was on her way out of town it would be simple to stop by and pick them up.If she did come back to town, and see my previous post regarding my thinking how and why, then the likelihood is that she didn't come on a train or bus. That means it was more than likely by car. Now one of the things I can't find is when she was supposed to have gone into the shop. If it was later in the day (most probable as this was when shops got their local papers) then it would've been dark, and with it being a small shop there was unlikely to be many other customers in there.
If she had come back to Dorking, then already she wasn't exactly lying low, so a quick nip into the newsagents wouldn't have hurt. The reasons why? Well these could be as simple as 1). wanting to get all of the papers - it is far easier to nip in and pay for them with your own money rather than ask someone else 2). What's the parking like outside? Was it restricted parking? Far safer than pulling up, the driver jumping out and then the police pulling up and asking why you're there 3). Rather than sit in a car, a moving person is much more likely to be studied in detail. As I've previously mentioned, there is a strong probability she wouldn't have known the shop had a camera.
If she had gone into that shop picked the papers up and gone then that incident wouldn't have even registered. But if she did become emotional (and that is quite likely) then it is only then that that makes it notable. And my point remains, if it wasn't Ruth - who was it? And why were they upset?

The comments about sightings immediately post her disappearance reinforce the doubts about the shop sighting. If the police had anything other than that isolated report why would they not disclose it when they did so with previous reports?

I don't quite understand. The police have never fully gone into what these other sightings were, by who or where they were. Which is strange. The only reason the newsagents was given any additional traction was because of the footage. Another point is that why did the police not ask for anyone to come forward to eliminate this as a line of enquiry?

My conclusion is that there were no corroborating reports or evidence for the shop sighting. None of this suggests a particular resolution. I am quite prepared to think she chose to disappear and remains alive, but cannot see any current evidence for or against other than that surrounding the actual disappearance and subsequent lack of a body on Box Hill.

The big problem with this case is both the lack of evidence and the constant flip flopping of some with a vested interest in the case, exemplified by Mark Williams Thomas who has veered from claiming she is on Box Hill to her not being on Box Hill. All that we can say at present is that certain features of the case look more or less likely and I would summarise them as;

• She is unlikely to be on Box Hill due to the searches, subsequent use of the hill by walkers and the 2012 Olympic crowds.
• She was unlikely to have been the victim of an opportunistic abduction when she was dropped off by the taxi due to the road being very much for locals. But that does not rule out a preplanned abduction based on her relying on the wrong person.
• She certainly intended to disappear based on her actions. The question is whether she had the resources and help to change identity effectively. I am 50/50 on that one. It could be done at that time but did need good planning.
• It is unlikely that the parents were either involved or have subsequent knowledge of her. I do not find their behaviour other than at one end of families in similar situations. Some do shun publicity, especially when family skeletons are uncovered.
• It is possible (rather than probable) a friend or friends have information but the failure of police to identify such a friend and the lack of any leaks seems to reduce the chances with each passing year.

The only thing I am sure about in this case is that getting too attached to one theory is a triumph of hope in the absence of evidence.

 

[BrianJohnson]

We may never know - it does seem a long shot though that someone just happened to be cruising in that area, at a time when there would've been a fair bit of traffic and it happened to a girl who had every motive to run away. JMO - but that seems way off the mark.

Indeed but Millie Dowler was on her way back from school in a busy area, in broad daylight, when Bellfield happened to be cruising around looking for a victim, it happens

 

[alb1on]

Indeed but Millie Dowler was on her way back from school in a busy area, in broad daylight, when Bellfield happened to be cruising around looking for a victim, it happens

But it would have required Bellfield to be cruising around on what really is a pretty obscure road, only used by locals, with no school on that road and without a large local resident population. Add in that a pub would be a less likely place to abduct someone given the risk of being seen or challenged and the coincidence of it happening at the same time as she had obviously planned to disappear ....... and the odds against Bellfield (or another opportunistic abductor) seem extreme. If there was an abduction my money is on it being preplanned by a predator posing as a friend, and even that seems no more probable than other scenarios.

 

[Cardgame]

But it would have required Bellfield to be cruising around on what really is a pretty obscure road, only used by locals, with no school on that road and without a large local resident population. Add in that a pub would be a less likely place to abduct someone given the risk of being seen or challenged and the coincidence of it happening at the same time as she had obviously planned to disappear ....... and the odds against Bellfield (or another opportunistic abductor) seem extreme. If there was an abduction my money is on it being preplanned by a predator posing as a friend, and even that seems no more probable than other scenarios.

Your comment made me think about this podcast I listened to about 'geographic forensic mapping'. It's about how they have identified certain geographic locations as hotspots for rape and assault of women. It sounds obvious, once you say it, but IIRC these are often nightclubs and pubs, with deserted footpaths/alleyways nearby.

It might be that whoever it was, was lurking there, in anticipation of abducting someone much later in the day, perhaps at kicking out time. But when they saw Ruth, hanging around at a loose end, they pounced.

All this to say, actually the deserted nature of the road and location doesn't necessarily, IMO, make it less likely that she was abducted, even by a total stranger. Any pub in a remote location could be hunting ground for a predator, horrible as it is to think.

But I also agree with you that a friend who abducted her could be a more likely possibility.

ETA: that might not be the correct podcast! I have definitely listened to two similar ones, and it's either this one or a different one, still hunting for the other link...

 

[Cardgame]

The only thing I am sure about in this case is that getting too attached to one theory is a triumph of hope in the absence of evidence.

RSBM this exactly. There can be no certainty, and IMO there is no explanation more 'obvious' than any other. Each scenario has something unlikely in it, and each is compelling for its own reasons. We can only hope that the thirty year anniversary prompts some fresh push for answers, although after this amount of time it might need to be a confession from whoever did it, or a revelation from Ruth herself if she is still alive. Not sure there is much hope of fresh evidence.

 

[Mrs Marple]

But it would have required Bellfield to be cruising around on what really is a pretty obscure road, only used by locals, with no school on that road and without a large local resident population. Add in that a pub would be a less likely place to abduct someone given the risk of being seen or challenged and the coincidence of it happening at the same time as she had obviously planned to disappear ....... and the odds against Bellfield (or another opportunistic abductor) seem extreme. If there was an abduction my money is on it being preplanned by a predator posing as a friend, and even that seems no more probable than other scenarios.

Miller knew of Bellfield through a friend as well. She got into the car because he wasn't a stranger to her.

 

[alb1on]

Miller knew of Bellfield through a friend as well. She got into the car because he wasn't a stranger to her.

I assume this refers to Milly Dowler. Where does the information about her knowing Bellfield come from? I have not seen this previously.

 

[Mrs Marple]

It was in a documentary. He had a connection to a woman who was mother to someone Millie was friendly with and the theory was they had met so she willingly accepted a lift from him because she was familiar. It seems plausible given she vanished on a busy road in broad daylight in minutes.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Your comment made me think about this podcast I listened to about 'geographic forensic mapping'. It's about how they have identified certain geographic locations as hotspots for rape and assault of women. It sounds obvious, once you say it, but IIRC these are often nightclubs and pubs, with deserted footpaths/alleyways nearby.

It might be that whoever it was, was lurking there, in anticipation of abducting someone much later in the day, perhaps at kicking out time. But when they saw Ruth, hanging around at a loose end, they pounced.

Possible - but it was a Monday night. I can't imagine that there would be a huge clientele in the pub that night. Also although it's not the most populated of areas, there are houses and businesses right by the pub. It just doesn't scream out to me somewhere would be lurking, the other thing being that a car just cruising around, or parked up, so early on in the evening would draw attention to itself.

All this to say, actually the deserted nature of the road and location doesn't necessarily, IMO, make it less likely that she was abducted, even by a total stranger. Any pub in a remote location could be hunting ground for a predator, horrible as it is to think.

But I also agree with you that a friend who abducted her could be a more likely possibility.

ETA: that might not be the correct podcast! I have definitely listened to two similar ones, and it's either this one or a different one, still hunting for the other link...

Although very tragic coincidences can take place, the fact that you have someone who is actively running away, buying last meals for her friends to remember her by, sending flowers etc. does point to someone running away rather than being abducted by sheer bad luck on the same day.