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

[hitthenick]

Sorry, where is it coming from that S left the 12 y/o behind and took only the twins when she left BL? I've missed that part.

Daily mail stated that she took the twins to NJ when the boiler broke and Ben had the 12 year old boy, the boy later joined mum at NJ’s flat.

She reschooled them, then all of a sudden she left NJ flat without telling him, took the kids out of the new school then went back to Bens house.

 

[deugirtni]

Daily mail stated that she took the twins to NJ when the boiler broke and Ben had the 12 year old boy, the boy later joined mum at NJ’s flat.

She reschooled them, then all of a sudden she left NJ flat without telling him, took the kids out of the new school then went back to Bens house.

I can't find the article, but in any case, it seems that S did not 'leave' the adolescent boy with her ex, even if he may not have been with her on the day of arrival?

 

[deugirtni]

....
Btw, I am very surprised to hear that your courts will allow 'majority rules' when talking about a murder trial. That astounds me. If that is the case, I don't think BL will have a chance of walking, since all they need are 7 of those jurors to think what they've been told was good enough to convict. jmo.

A majority verdict is 10 or 11 out of 12 jurors not 7. ....

This is England and Wales deu....Scotland has a different sysyem and N Ireland too iirc
Crown Court trial Part 3 | Defence-Barrister.co.uk — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Thanks for that. I guess that logistically, this makes a lot of sense not to have to declare a mistrial and re-do the entire thing, just because there might be ONE holdout (or two??). I'm relieved to hear it isn't simply a 'majority rules' type of thing though!

There will be 12 jurors at the start of any criminal trial but sometimes jurors are discharged during the trial due to illness or for some other good reason. The minimum number of jurors permissible is 9, so any less would require the trial to be aborted.

When a majority direction is given the jury will be called back into court and told that the time has been reached at which a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty by a majority can be accepted. They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury. When there are 12 jurors the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2. When there are 11 jurors the permissible majority verdict is 10-1. For 10 jurors it is 9-1. For 9 jurors no majority verdict is permitted so no such direction could be given.

 

[Alyce]

Yes I get what you mean...BUT..the child had already seen Mum's purse and phones in her room - and found the bed wet "at the top, near the wardrobe". Disposing of all these items after Sarah's disappearance had already been noticed would have been absolute suicide to his defence and alibi. I think he had a plan, a well thought out plan, which then went very wrong once he got home and found one of his children up and about - and no doubt already asking questions

I think this is a very good point.

I do wonder,did he intend to kill SW that night, or was it just the chat re her new job that pushed him to act at that time. I think he already had a plan worked out, but perhaps did not have a specific date in mind. So, when he acted that night, it may have been impulse and this could have caused him to forget some of the things he needed to do, such as removing items.


On the subject of items - the top of SWs found, wet, in the shed - which BL dismissed as an old rag. I somehow can't imagine, given the state of their relationship, that SW would have handed over one of her tops for him to use.

 

[Alyce]

Woolwich Crown Court 3 T20197107

ben sebastian lacomba

Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:07
Trial (Part Heard) - Summing Up - 10:15

 

[Mrs Marple]

This type of thing is very possible, but it sure as heck can't be relied upon. Some people wake to ANYTHING. Some people are 'dead to the world'. And variations of each person depending on particular night in question. Some people are up in the night (neighbours - you never know their habits?) And notice how many it took to get the husband's unconscious weight out of bed and down the stairs and into the vehicle? Could they have put him instead into a nerfgun carrier to make it easier? How hard would that have been to fold the limp body to fit into the box and then carry it?

This is true. Every morning l wake up early at the weekend and my daughter isn't awake, l try to sneak down thr stairs to get a coffee. The second my hand touches that door handle, she's awake. Every time.

Yes I get what you mean...BUT..the child had already seen Mum's purse and phones in her room - and found the bed wet "at the top, near the wardrobe". Disposing of all these items after Sarah's disappearance had already been noticed would have been absolute suicide to his defence and alibi. I think he had a plan, a well thought out plan, which then went very wrong once he got home and found one of his children up and about - and no doubt already asking questions

It's suddenly struck me as odd that this child noticed things like her purse and keys being there. Why would they notice that and remember it then relay it to the police? It's the middle of the night, they are sleepy..then they notice the bed is wet? Possibly they went to get in it?

The evidence about NJ getting annoyed about Sarah telling BL about the job is interesting. Bit controlling imho

 

[deugirtni]

I think this is a very good point.

I do wonder,did he intend to kill SW that night, or was it just the chat re her new job that pushed him to act at that time. I think he already had a plan worked out, but perhaps did not have a specific date in mind. So, when he acted that night, it may have been impulse and this could have caused him to forget some of the things he needed to do, such as removing items.

On the subject of items - the top of SWs found, wet, in the shed - which BL dismissed as an old rag. I somehow can't imagine, given the state of their relationship, that SW would have handed over one of her tops for him to use.

I know there have been times when my other half has intercepted things I was disposing of, whether in the trash or to be donated, because he wanted to cut them up into cleaning/drying/polishing rags for his shop area.

The timing (just when she found out and disclosed that she'd secured a new job with a regular salary) is certainly suspect.

It is kind of surprising that the two had already gone through a separation of at least 18 months without incident apparently (while S and the kids were living with NJ).. but from what I remember, S was all concerned about losing the kids, which was said to be why she moved back into the 'marital home'. Somewhere it was said that S had received custody from the courts, but I'm not sure at which stage that was? Surely if it had been while she was living with NH, then she didn't have to be so concerned about 'losing the kids'? So if the custody order came *after* S moved back into the 'marital home', and it looked like S would be able to remain there with the children, there would be nothing for BL to take to court to fight her on. Then when it looked like she may actually be able to come through with her buy-out wishes, which he'd previously discounted, that could've tipped the scales and caused him to become scared of losing his kids, causing him to act.. but for him to have done it immediately as soon as he found out about her job certainly seems suspect, and if planned, one might presume he'd choose a less conspicuous time?

 

[deugirtni]

This is true. Every morning l wake up early at the weekend and my daughter isn't awake, l try to sneak down thr stairs to get a coffee. The second my hand touches that door handle, she's awake. Every time.

It's suddenly struck me as odd that this child noticed things like her purse and keys being there. Why would they notice that and remember it then relay it to the police? It's the middle of the night, they are sleepy..then they notice the bed is wet? Possibly they went to get in it?

The evidence about NJ getting annoyed about Sarah telling BL about the job is interesting. Bit controlling imho

There has been nothing reported from the court, and I'm not even sure if NJ testified in person, or if only his statement was read??? But wondering if NJ was fearful at all, about something happening to S at BL's hand? It sure wouldn't have been an ideal situation living with your ex when you're not together any more.

 

[Mrs Marple]

This is true. Every morning l wake up early at the weekend and my daughter isn't awake, l try to sneak down thr stairs to get a coffee. The second my hand touches that door handle, she's awake. Every time.



It's suddenly struck me as odd that this child noticed things like her purse and keys being there. Why would they notice that and remember it then relay it to the police? It's the middle of the night, they are sleepy..then they notice the bed is wet? Possibly they went to get in it?

The evidence about NJ getting annoyed about Sarah telling BL about the job is interesting. Bit controlling imho

Wasn't the job in Portsmouth though? Maybe he thought she was going to up and leave without telling him, as she bad done to NJ.

 

[Alyce]

Woolwich Crown Court 3 T20197107
ben sebastian lacomba
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:07
Trial (Part Heard) - Summing Up - 10:15
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 11:19

 

[Alyce]

Wasn't the job in Portsmouth though? Maybe he thought she was going to up and leave without telling him, as she bad done to NJ.

The job was offered by a Company based in Stockport. They distribute products throughout England / UK ( not sure how far they operate ) so I presume SW would have been allocated to a region - probably south east - to sell the items. No need to move away from Bazes Shaw.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I think in our minds we may, even subconsciously, link Wet rag in shed to Wet Bed somehow?

To me it sounds like it was stuffed away in the shed, only found on a more detailed search of shed but always present? Im not sure if its linked in any way .

 

[Mrs Marple]

Someone mentioned water boarding as a possibility

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Someone mentioned water boarding as a possibility

Not a fan. . A little too elaborate imo

 

[Mrs Marple]

Not a fan. . A little too elaborate imo

Sounds like a two person job as well. *shudders*

 

[Alyce]

Not a fan. . A little too elaborate imo

Agree. I think it more likely to be, as Mrazda said, a glass of water on the bedside table. BL was hardly going to put a light on when he went into her bedroom, so he could have knocked this over.

 

[hitthenick]

Someone mentioned water boarding as a possibility

If you research what water boarding is and how it happens and also how it will kill someone, the method is too messy in a house with 3 kids present, it can also be very noisy too. The quieter the better and that’s why I feel he has gone into her room when she’s asleep and smothered/suffocated her, that’s very quick and if he has pinned her down under her duvet then it will stop her from moving too...

 

[Alyce]

11:55

Day 15: Judge continues summing up case

Welcome to this morning’s live updates from Woolwich Crown Court as Judge Christopher Kinch QC continues to sum up the Ben Lacomba murder trial.

Lacomba denies murdering the mum-of-five.

Judge Kinch is continuing to address the jury about CCTV footage and the expert evidence given on this.

He then goes back into the background of Sarah Wellgreen and Lacomba’s relationship.

Judge Kinch addresses evidence on Miss Wellgreen moving back to 22 Bazes Shaw and her plans to buy Lacomba out of the house prior to getting a new job.


Live updates as Sarah Wellgreen's ex-partner goes on trial accused of her murder

 

[Alyce]

12:11

Good character

Judge Kinch moves on to Lacomba’s character. He has no criminal convictions or cautions.

The judge says:

He is a man of good character.

Good character cannot by itself provide a defence to a criminal charge.

Even the most hardened criminal had a good character once.

Judge Kinch explains that jurors should take his good character “in his favour when deciding whether you believe his evidence” and it may mean he is “less likely than otherwise might be the case to have committed the offences with which he is charged.”

 

[Noseyjosie]

JMO but I think he actually had planned to do away with Sarah on that date - he needed it to be a Tuesday due to his habit of getting the taxi cleaned on a Wednesday morning so no changes in his routine would be flagged up, he'd deliberately parked out of sight of the CCTV cameras. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd already been and prepared the grave/disposal site so he'd be out of the house for the least time as possible in case a child woke - I bet he wishes he'd dosed them up with Calpol now! I think the prosecution are spot on about him getting "the shock of his life" when he got home and found the child up watching TV
It'd be interesting to know which car park his taxi was in on the previous nights that the CCTV was turned off - maybe he'd had an aborted attempt in the weeks before but things hadn't played out for him?