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

[Bickles]

Excuse me if this has already been answered but were search/cadaver dogs ever used on Box Hill to find her remains? Seems to me if she was there, LE would've found her had they used them. I've been reading lots of news stories about the case and not one has mentioned the use of trained dogs. Anyone know? IMO, she's out there, thanks to a little help from her friends at the start.

It is reported here that dogs were used during the search:

BBC News - Plea to trace missing teenager Ruth Wilson 14 years on

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Cardgame]

It is reported here that dogs were used during the search:

BBC News - Plea to trace missing teenager Ruth Wilson 14 years on

news.bbc.co.uk

Yes I believe dogs were used although I don't know if they were cadaver dogs or dogs that they use to sniff out alive people. I believe these were deployed quickly, ie the next Saturday, it's definitely mentioned in those articles I posted earlier according to the stepmother.

I'm not sure there has ever been, for example, a search of the family home using cadaver dogs or something like that which would probably happen these days if she wasn't located within a certain timeframe.

 

[Same Old Stella]

It is reported here that dogs were used during the search:

BBC News - Plea to trace missing teenager Ruth Wilson 14 years on

news.bbc.co.uk

Thank you! I don't read BBC, that's why I missed it.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I'm starting to put together a bigger timeframe of how I think things may have happened, and there's two other things that have stood out for me:
1). The youth club on the Sunday night she attended after bell ringing. Was this a regular place she would go, or was it because it was a last chance for Ruth to see people she knew before she left (this is only a very vague idea, chances are she went every week)
2). In the reports it's said that her father was preparing for an Ofsted report and her step-mother was also busy. Did Ruth choose this day specifically knowing her parents may be later home than normal - therefore giving her more time to get away / or be later in getting away if anything changed.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Does anyone know where there is a copy of the footage of the newsagents supposedly showing her? I've seen a still, but can't find the full video - also does anyone know about her supposedly being seen in London by the L!VE TV channel? A few scant references but nothing else.

 

[alb1on]

Does anyone know where there is a copy of the footage of the newsagents supposedly showing her? I've seen a still, but can't find the full video - also does anyone know about her supposedly being caught on film for the L!VE TV channel? A few scant references but nothing else.

Are you sure the Ruth Wilson reported on L!ve tv is the missing? I understood that only stills had ever been released. The actress Ruth Wilson has appeared on a number of occasions.

 

[TheRockingRev]

Are you sure the Ruth Wilson reported on L!ve tv is the missing? I understood that only stills had ever been released. The actress Ruth Wilson has appeared on a number of occasions.

Sorry - amended. It was actually that L!VE TV reported she had been spotted, not actually appeared on film. My apologies about hat.

 

[Cardgame]

Wasn't this in response to an Appeal on television? That people had phoned in saying they had spotted her. From memory this was about a year after she went missing. They seemed to think at the time that they were promising leads but i guess nothing ever came of them.

Sorry - amended. It was actually that L!VE TV reported she had been spotted, not actually appeared on film. My apologies about hat.

 

[TheRockingRev]

This quote from Ruth's father to Martin Bright:
"I’ve made the final decision that I don’t wish to participate in this particular project. I know that you will do a good job and your part is going to be very professional, like you have always been in the past, but it’s a complicated one and I’ve made the final decision. You can probably tell from my voice that it’s quite an emotional one."

I think this is a very big clue - his daughter is missing, he apparently has no idea where she is, or what happened, but instead uses the phrase "it's a complicated one".
There is obviously something much bigger than the surface story to say it's complicated - I do believe, JMO, that the family know exactly what happened (that she ran of and started a new life) and either have said nothing to avoid media and public scrutiny or because Ruth has told them not to.

 

[alb1on]

This quote from Ruth's father to Martin Bright:
"I’ve made the final decision that I don’t wish to participate in this particular project. I know that you will do a good job and your part is going to be very professional, like you have always been in the past, but it’s a complicated one and I’ve made the final decision. You can probably tell from my voice that it’s quite an emotional one."

I think this is a very big clue - his daughter is missing, he apparently has no idea where she is, or what happened, but instead uses the phrase "it's a complicated one".
There is obviously something much bigger than the surface story to say it's complicated - I do believe, JMO, that the family know exactly what happened (that she ran of and started a new life) and either have said nothing to avoid media and public scrutiny or because Ruth has told them not to.

There is only one problem with this interpretation. If they are aware of her circumstances then they are obliged to inform Surrey Police (and can specify that it should not be made public). This is because the police have committed considerable resource, including multiple case reviews in the subsequent years. That the police do not know seems certain from the appeals and case reviews. If the family did know and kept it to themselves it would risk a charge of wasting police time.

 

[TheRockingRev]

There is only one problem with this interpretation. If they are aware of her circumstances then they are obliged to inform Surrey Police (and can specify that it should not be made public). This is because the police have committed considerable resource, including multiple case reviews in the subsequent years. That the police do not know seems certain from the appeals and case reviews. If the family did know and kept it to themselves it would risk a charge of wasting police time.

Well yes, but when was the last police case review and appeal? The police also refused to make comment. Now they may not have known at the time she went missing, but may have in later years, hence the lack of new police action. As you say, even if the police do know from the family, they don't need to disclose it. It would explain the lack of recent activity and reluctance to appear in the documentary.
IMO the family would also not want to go public either a). Because Ruth has asked them not too or b). They may feel embarrased by all the resources.
Unfortunately we live in a world where had they said they only knew in the last 5 years, there would still be those who swore blind at the very start.

 

[alb1on]

Well yes, but when was the last police case review and appeal? The police also refused to make comment. Now they may not have known at the time she went missing, but may have in later years, hence the lack of new police action. As you say, even if the police do know from the family, they don't need to disclose it. It would explain the lack of recent activity and reluctance to appear in the documentary.
IMO the family would also not want to go public either a). Because Ruth has asked them not too or b). They may feel embarrased by all the resources.
Unfortunately we live in a world where had they said they only knew in the last 5 years, there would still be those who swore blind at the very start.

The last case review of which I am aware was 2018 but there may have been another since. Only last month the case was covered in The Mirror with a quote from the police that it remains a missing persons inquiry and they are keeping an open mind about what happened.

 

[TheRockingRev]

The last case review of which I am aware was 2018 but there may have been another since. Only last month the case was covered in The Mirror with a quote from the police that it remains a missing persons inquiry and they are keeping an open mind about what happened.

That's the last I can find, and that the police refused to be involved in the Martin Bright documentary. It was in the Daily Mail, but I'm not too sure how old that quote was. I've got a copy at home so will check.

 

[Cardgame]

This quote from Ruth's father to Martin Bright:
"I’ve made the final decision that I don’t wish to participate in this particular project. I know that you will do a good job and your part is going to be very professional, like you have always been in the past, but it’s a complicated one and I’ve made the final decision. You can probably tell from my voice that it’s quite an emotional one."

I think this is a very big clue - his daughter is missing, he apparently has no idea where she is, or what happened, but instead uses the phrase "it's a complicated one".
There is obviously something much bigger than the surface story to say it's complicated - I do believe, JMO, that the family know exactly what happened (that she ran of and started a new life) and either have said nothing to avoid media and public scrutiny or because Ruth has told them not to.

I don't understand why the police/family wouldn't just issue a statement saying:

"It has now come to our attention that Ruth is alive and well, and has chosen not to be a part of our family. She does not wish to speak to the media and nor do we. We ask you to respect our privacy and hers, at this time."

Surely - even if there was an initial flurry of interest at this statement - the long term effect would be that the pressure, the scrutiny, the mystery, would be gone? Going missing isn't a crime. I don't think?

'It's a complicated one' could mean all sorts of things. It could be that his wife, who isn't Ruth's mother, doesn't want him getting swept up in it all again. It could be that he has compartmentalised his pain and his own mental health can't stand the strain of opening up that box. Or it could be nefarious, ie he has something to hide.

I don't feel convinced that it's complicated because he knows she is actually alive. To me, that would make it simple: she's alive. You don't need to do a documentary. End of.

Why would they want the shadow of murder/suicide hanging over them?

For Ruth's sake?

IMO that seems unlikely.

Also, even if Ruth did run away, I don't feel convinced that she would subsequently tell her family that she's alive. I think that's something you take to your grave. To go to all that effort to run away, to ride out the police investigation, the tv appeals a year on, unless it was a massive cry for attention (which I don't believe) then why then turn around and tell them? She must hate them, to do this to them. We don't know to what extent this was deserved, but the facts we do know make it clear there was a LOT of difficult history. I feel like if at any point she reappeared and said 'I'm alive' then the family would want that to be made public, in order to clear their names.

Having said all that, I personally do not believe that Ruth is alive. I think that she came to harm on that evening. And i do not think she killed herself. There are too many unanswered questions and too many avenues that were unexplored by the police at the time.

But I would really love to be wrong.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I don't understand why the police/family wouldn't just issue a statement saying:

"It has now come to our attention that Ruth is alive and well, and has chosen not to be a part of our family. She does not wish to speak to the media and nor do we. We ask you to respect our privacy and hers, at this time."

Surely - even if there was an initial flurry of interest at this statement - the long term effect would be that the pressure, the scrutiny, the mystery, would be gone? Going missing isn't a crime. I don't think'It's a complicated one' could mean all sorts of things. It could be that his wife, who isn't Ruth's mother, doesn't want him getting swept up in it all again. It could be that he has compartmentalised his pain and his own mental health can't stand the strain of opening up that box. Or it could be nefarious, ie he has something to hide.

I don't feel convinced that it's complicated because he knows she is actually alive. To me, that would make it simple: she's alive. You don't need to do a documentary. End of.

Why would they want the shadow of murder/suicide hanging over them?

For Ruth's sake?

IMO that seems unlikely.

Also, even if Ruth did run away, I don't feel convinced that she would subsequently tell her family that she's alive. I think that's something you take to your grave. To go to all that effort to run away, to ride out the police investigation, the tv appeals a year on, unless it was a massive cry for attention (which I don't believe) then why then turn around and tell them? She must hate them, to do this to them. We don't know to what extent this was deserved, but the facts we do know make it clear there was a LOT of difficult history. I feel like if at any point she reappeared and said 'I'm alive' then the family would want that to be made public, in order to clear their names.

Having said all that, I personally do not believe that Ruth is alive. I think that she came to harm on that evening. And i do not think she killed herself. There are too many unanswered questions and too many avenues that were unexplored by the police at the time.

But I would really love to be wrong.

Well all valid points, but of course we're all allowed our opinion.
I do fully get your point that a statement would be easy, but you would unleash the floodgates - and not just on the family. There would definitely then be people trying to track her down, monitoring the family house, their movements and let's not forget the phone hacking scandal, so possibly phone calls and emails too.

I don't get the clearing their names - the police as far as I know have never looked at them as suspects, and the only people who may have that opinion would likely be a very small deluded minority (every time someone disappears or a body is found there's a small number who blame the family - look at Nicola Bulley, and I saw it first hand with a famous murder case in my hometown). I doubt they even look at what is being said, but if you were to announce that she was alive the public scrutiny would be massive.

Again that's your opinion, but IMO, a girl who clearly didn't want to be at home, who didn't like her homelife has the most motivation for vanishing of her own free will. If she did come to harm then it would've been by someone involved in that plan rather than a out of the blue coincidence. That's not to say it couldn't have happened, but the odds are very low.

 

[alb1on]

That's the last I can find, and that the police refused to be involved in the Martin Bright documentary. It was in the Daily Mail, but I'm not too sure how old that quote was. I've got a copy at home so will check.

For some reason several media have run Ruth Wilson stories in the last month, including both national and local like Surrey Live. To take the timeline forward a little Martin Bright, the journalist who made the documentary and has written about the case for national media, confirmed that the police had told him in November 2020 that 'the case remains very much live' - see Ruth Wilson vanished 25 years ago today.

 

[TheRockingRev]

For some reason several media have run Ruth Wilson stories in the last month, including both national and local like Surrey Live. To take the timeline forward a little Martin Bright, the journalist who made the documentary and has written about the case for national media, confirmed that the police had told him in November 2020 that 'the case remains very much live' - see Ruth Wilson vanished 25 years ago today.

I wouldn't necessarily look into the media running stories as anything other slow news days, a journalist who has a sudden interest in it and then other news sources running with it as well (pretty common now that once one news source has run it, countless others will as well, many clearly just using the same base text).
I believe UK police procedures are very clear about not putting information into the public domain if a found person does not wish it, and that would include by announcing a case closure

 

[alb1on]

I wouldn't necessarily look into the media running stories as anything other slow news days, a journalist who has a sudden interest in it and then other news sources running with it as well (pretty common now that once one news source has run it, countless others will as well, many clearly just using the same base text).
I believe UK police procedures are very clear about not putting information into the public domain if a found person does not wish it, and that would include by announcing a case closure

That is a grey area (the issue of case closure) although it is correct that no information about the person would be released. However, no case review would be carried out (even less by a very senior officer as in 2018) if they had closure information. If they did not wish to announce case closed they would still not make a comment about it 'remaining very much alive'. They would, at most, simply say that the case remains open. There is also the issue of leaks. Mark Williams Thomas, for all his faults which I have commented on, is a former Surrey officer who retains sources in that force. If they knew what had happened it would have leaked to him and there is no way he would have kept quiet in his new role of media frontman. If there is one thing I am certain of in this whole case it is that the police do not know what happened.

 

[TheRockingRev]

That is a grey area (the issue of case closure) although it is correct that no information about the person would be released. However, no case review would be carried out (even less by a very senior officer as in 2018) if they had closure information. If they did not wish to announce case closed they would still not make a comment about it 'remaining very much alive'. They would, at most, simply say that the case remains open. There is also the issue of leaks. Mark Williams Thomas, for all his faults which I have commented on, is a former Surrey officer who retains sources in that force. If they knew what had happened it would have leaked to him and there is no way he would have kept quiet in his new role of media frontman. If there is one thing I am certain of in this whole case it is that the police do not know what happened.

Well the key there is the year - if, and again JMO, if the information came out it could've been after that last case review in 2018. We are talking 7 years (where has that time gone?).
AS for MWT - possibly not. There's been a lot of spotlight put on him due to his very public statements. He may well have connections in the police, but I doubt they'd be very happy with them passing that info on, or disclosing it to him at all, as that would put some scrutiny on them which they really don't need. Would people be willing to risk their careers now that people in positions are power are questioning where MWT is getting his info from? I would doubt it. I think that door may be a bit more closed now. If anything MWT is nothing more than a million other online investigators - he throws a few carefully worded vague statements out, using his supposedly inside knowledge and reputation, that may possibly come true, and then he can claim credit for them. He's slightly taken in by his own ego now.

 

[BrianJohnson]

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