The thing is that a coat is a pretty stand-out item - so dependent on what sort of coat she had, she may not have wanted to have taken it if then people would've remembered her on that night (remember she was trying to pull off the idea of a suicide). IMO she had help getting away, so a friend may have had a coat for her late on that evening.the thing that goes against Ruth leaving of her own free will is she doesn't take anything with not her walkman or tapes not a change of clothes or even a coat.
that doesn't strike me as someone who's planning run away it doesn't even strike me as someone whos planning to stay out the night thats strikes me as someone who is planning to return home
i mean he parents are at work, her sister is at school, she has all day to pack a bag but doesn't
Because she may have left it with a friend. Over time she could've removed items of clothing from her wardrobe and then stashed them with a friend - interestingly it's remarked quite often that she wasn't much of dresser and didn't really care about fashion. It would mean that potentially there wasn't anything stand-out in her wardrobe that perhaps anyone would've noticed missing.she wasnt carrying anything in the taxi if she didn't go home that night how could she be carrying a suitcase the next day
Not really. Some things, like the footage of the girl in the shop, have just vanished from on-line. It'll be interesting to see as the case reaches its 30 year anniversary next month if the press pick it up again and more details come out, the family make any statements or, and this would be the best, that we hear from Ruth herself (I'm still very much of the opinion that she stared a new life)I see this case has been going on for a while... Is there any evidence aside from the timeline?
The one piece of evidence we do have is that the police do not have a scooby. This is not a criticism but they do not conduct a case review using a Superintendent if they know what happened.Not really. Some things, like the footage of the girl in the shop, have just vanished from on-line. It'll be interesting to see as the case reaches its 30 year anniversary next month if the press pick it up again and more details come out, the family make any statements or, and this would be the best, that we hear from Ruth herself (I'm still very much of the opinion that she stared a new life)
I can't remember for sure, but something makes me think one was done, but it may have been an amateur one instead of anything official.Has an age progression image ever been made of Ruth?
The pub Ruth was dropped off at is the far side from the Country Park / natural beauty spot. Whilst you can walk to the hill from there, I think it more likely that the purpose of her trip was to do something in the village, and not on the hill.
She could have written the letters at any time though. She'd spent time in tbe library beforehand so she could have written them there or earlier depending how much planning went on. As for the paracetamol and alcohol I'm not sure it's ever definitely been linked to Ruth? Just it was found nearby.she couldent of writtan those letters there wasnt enough light she couldent of taken paracetemel and drunk vermouth becouse she would beflat on her back if she had and theres the matter of where she could of bought a bottle as she dident hae one in the taxi
she im pretty sure that was all planted there buy someone for whatever reason
Looking at the geography, but without any local knowledge, I don't know why it is sometimes assumed that Ruth either went up Boxhill or wanted to give the impression that she had done so. Why would anyone think that just from the fact that the hill was nearby? There was a big pub, shops and houses. It isn't a natural conclusion when someone is dropped off there late in the day in winter. Of course, the letters were found later, but they could have been put there before or after and could be the work of an accomplice.i also cant see why she would want to sit on a hill in the dark in the winter with no coat on
Yes this did happen. There have been cases where some criminals have used the details of dead individuals, usually infants, to obtain a new identity. I think infants were chosen as there'd be no other 'footprint' to worry about and there'd be no problem with a national insurance number. In my head I have a feeling a few years back the police got in to a bit of bother using the sane techniques when supplying new identities to people being put in to protection schemes. So it's definitely possible.The book and film "The Day of the Jackal" exposed a loophole whereby you could apply for the birth certificate of someone who had died and use that to take on a new identity. In the book and film it was used to get a passport, but you could just use it to get a new identity. That loophole was closed at some time so you could no longer use it to get a passport. When was it closed?
And could Ruth simply have used another person's birth certificate to take on a new ID without applying for a passport?
A government minister complained at one time that NI numbers were given out like smarties. If Ruth got a birth certificate, she could certainly have got a national insurance number. Even without a birth certificate, she could perhaps have got a national insurance number.
Maybe Ruth is alive and living under a new ID in, say, Sheffield.