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

[mrazda71]

I hope he's found guilty what he's put his little kids through is absolutely despicable when you look at how he is with his mum and how he can't live without her and even though he's nearly 40 there she is by his side every five minutes yet he murders their mum whilst they are so young. Just awful.

RSBM

Totally agree ... purely selfish act.

 

[mrazda71]

I'm looking forward to hearing all the evidence that will inevitably come out after the guilty verdict ...

I'm just imagining him repeatedly referring to Sarah in the past tense in his 999 call!

 

[Tortoise]

Wasn't his head in view of the cctv camera when he passed the gate in the wall? Or was that earlier on when he parked the car coming home from work?

 

[Legally Bland]

Wasn't his head in view of the cctv camera when he passed the gate in the wall? Or was that earlier on when he parked the car coming home from work?

I don't think it's ever been made clear, in the reporting anyways.

 

[Alyce]

Wasn't his head in view of the cctv camera when he passed the gate in the wall? Or was that earlier on when he parked the car coming home from work?

Found this from day one of the trial


October 9, 2018

5.08pm - Lacomba arrived back at the home but CCTV showed him parking in a different car park (car park 2) from the one he was in (car park 1) at 9am. The court heard: “This was not the normal place for him to park. The prosecution alleges that the defendant’s decision to park in car park 2 was unusual but quite deliberate.”
Footage shows the top of his head visibile over the top of the fence on camera.

The court is told car park 1 is directly outside their home (number 22) whereas car park 2 is to the right of number 23.
Ms Morgan said: “If you park in car park 1, you will be captured on CCTV.
If you park in car park 2 and choose to duck down beneath the height of the fence, you won’t be seen.”

 

[deugirtni]

Wasn't his head in view of the cctv camera when he passed the gate in the wall? Or was that earlier on when he parked the car coming home from work?

I don't think it's ever been made clear, in the reporting anyways.

Found this from day one of the trial

October 9, 2018

5.08pm - Lacomba arrived back at the home but CCTV showed him parking in a different car park (car park 2) from the one he was in (car park 1) at 9am. The court heard: “This was not the normal place for him to park. The prosecution alleges that the defendant’s decision to park in car park 2 was unusual but quite deliberate.”
Footage shows the top of his head visibile over the top of the fence on camera.

The court is told car park 1 is directly outside their home (number 22) whereas car park 2 is to the right of number 23.
Ms Morgan said: “If you park in car park 1, you will be captured on CCTV.
If you park in car park 2 and choose to duck down beneath the height of the fence, you won’t be seen.”

Does this suggest they *don't* have CCTV footage of BL at all when he exited and then re-entered in the wee hours?

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

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

10:22

The alleged offence of murder

Judge Kinch begins by outlining the charge “alleging the offence of murder against Ben Lacomba”.

He said:

“The 9th into the 10th is the period that is covered” by the indictment.

“The allegation is that on some point in the course of that night Ben Lacomba murdered Sarah Wellgreen”, continues Judge Kinch.

“The allegation is that most serious offence of murder. The question that in due course you will have to answer after your deliberations is do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty of murder.”

The prosecution will have to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove anything.

Sarah Wellgreen has not been seen since the night of October 9 and 10 , 2018 and the first issue in this case is whether it has been proved that she is dead.

The next issue is whether it has been proved that the defendant killed her.

The prosecution allege that this is the case of a planned and deliberate murder.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

10:25


The questions that must be asked

Woolwich Crown Court


The jury must contemplate the following:

Question 1: “Are we sure that Sarah Jane Wellgreen is dead?” If a juror believes so, then they must answer question 2.

Question 2: “Are we sure that Ben Lacomba intended to and did kill Sarah Jane Wellgreen?”

Jurors must answer yes to both questions to return a guilty verdict, otherwise must return a not guilty verdict.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

10:36


Prosecution: 'Sarah was a beautiful woman who had everything to live for'

Sarah Jane Wellgreen was reported missing from New Ash Green on October 9 (Image: Source Unknown)


The prosecution, Alison Morgan QC, is reading her closing statement:

“In October 2018, Sarah Wellgreen was a beautiful woman who had everything to live for.

She had five children who she loved deeply. She had parents who cared for her greatly. She had many friends.

She had a new job with a company car. She almost had a mortgage to buy the defendant out of the family home.

She was planning a holiday to Mallorca. She was happy, smiley, funny. Her usual self.

Ms Morgan continues:

“She was murdered on the night of the 9th and 10th by this defendant” and describes him as “an angry, bitter and controlling man.”

“He wanted custody of his children, in his home on his terms. When it was clear to him that this was not how it was going to be, he was not going to have it.

“How long he planned for is known only to him.

“Only he can unlock that secret. The secret of how he killed her and disposed of her body.”

Ms Morgan says “the desperation and concern was obvious by everyone except this defendant”. He sent Sarah Wellgreen one solitary text at 11.30am on October 10 and made no calls as he had a “complete disinterest in Sarah Wellgreen’s wellbeing”.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

10:47

'The only thing wrong in Sarah's life was this defendant'

Sarah Wellgreen has been missing since October 9 (Image: Kent Police)


During the 999 call he made under “pressure” from her family, he tried to “deflect” the police’s interests towards others and “sow seeds of doubt about Sarah,” says Ms Morgan.

“The only thing wrong with Sarah’s life was this defendant and she would finally be free of him,” when the mortgage went through and she started her new job, says Ms Morgan.

“Members of the jury, she is not alive. Sadly there is no sensible conclusion other than Sarah is dead.

“She was happy, positive, full of life and joy. Excited about her new job and excited about her life ahead.

Sarah was also “counselling others about getting down,” as seen in one of her last messages to others.

“Either that was all a front, or Sarah was not at all feeling suicidal in October 2018,” says Ms Morgan.

Her mental health history shows there was “no risk of self harm or suicide”.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

10:56

Prosecution continues: 'People who kill themselves do not then bury themselves six feet under never to be found'

“Plainly, Sarah Wellgreen did not commit suicide members of the jury. People who kill themselves do not then bury themselves six feet under never to be found.”

“Another option is “Sarah went to meet someone other than the defendant and was then murdered. This would mean there was an unknown murderer out there who lured her to her death. We know that she hadn’t been using those dating applications in the three months before her death.

“How would they have got into the house without being seen or heard that night. Sarah would have had to have left the house that night and travelled on foot while avoiding the cameras, not taking any of her possessions with her.

“It is completely implausible and the fancified idea that this might have happened comes from one place, it comes from the defendants imagination”.

“There is only one option in this case and it is not in fact because there are no other sensible options, it is because of the evidence of what he did and when that tells you beyond any doubt that he is responsible for Sarah Wellgreen’s murder.”

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

11:04

'Sarah would have got everything that she wanted. The children, the house and him out'


The prosecution continues:


“Sarah would have got everything that she wanted. The children, the house and him out.

“If he was so anxious to ensure that at that time that there was coverage of what was going on outside 22 Bazes Shaw, why didn’t he just buy a new DVR box and attach it to his camera?

Why rely on the coverage from a neighbour’s property?

He wasn’t concerned about Mr Ellis’ cameras capturing and recording.

He was concerned to make sure that the camera angles were as such to avoid them when the moment came and that is exactly why he parked his car in car park 2 at 5.08pm on the night of October 9.

CCTV cameras outside 22 Bazes Shaw, the home of Ben Lacomba and Sarah Wellgreen (Image: Jim Bennett)




“His suggestion that there were no spaces in car park 1 at that time was a demonstrable lie.

A lie that he was caught out on because when we showed him the footage, there were at least eight spaces available for him and that is one of the many lies that the defendant has told you, that he told the police, and they are lies for a reason.

The defendant has been trying to get out of the truth from the moment he called the police on October 11 to when he gave evidence to you.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

11:43

Why Lacomba was not 'tucked up in bed' that night

It is essential that he keeps himself upstairs in his bedroom. That’s the absolute cornerstone of his case. And you have seen the number of pieces of evidence that demonstrate that that cannot be true.”

Ms Morgan lists reasons that prove Lacomba was not “tucked up in bed” that night.

• Data sessions on both of his phones at the appropriate time in the prosecution’s chronology
• Turning off the CCTV cameras at 22 Bazes Shaw
• The vehicle captured on CCTV travelling away from New Ash Green and back again some two hours later along the same route. Ms Morgan says “he has to” deny it was his vehicle as “if it was his vehicle, it is game over,” before listing the evidence which states that it was the same make and model as Lacomba’s taxi.
• The flashes of light in car park 2 just minutes later which the prosecution allege is the car returning to Bazes Shaw
• CCTV capturing a light coming on downstairs in 22 Bazes Shaw and an occupant of the house stating that Miss Wellgreen wasn’t home and neither was Lacomba but the 39-year-old later returned to the house.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

11:44

Court has paused

The court is now having a short break

 

[Mommysleuth11]

I think the Jury will convict. The house occupants evidence is key, the light being on for whatever period of time corroborates them waking up alone in the house and going down to watch TV. The Jurors have obviously heard way more than us but to me that proves beyond any doubt BL is lying and the occupant being truthful. All obviously MOO.

 

[deugirtni]

11:43

Why Lacomba was not 'tucked up in bed' that night

It is essential that he keeps himself upstairs in his bedroom. That’s the absolute cornerstone of his case. And you have seen the number of pieces of evidence that demonstrate that that cannot be true.”

Ms Morgan lists reasons that prove Lacomba was not “tucked up in bed” that night.

• Data sessions on both of his phones at the appropriate time in the prosecution’s chronology
• Turning off the CCTV cameras at 22 Bazes Shaw
• The vehicle captured on CCTV travelling away from New Ash Green and back again some two hours later along the same route. Ms Morgan says “he has to” deny it was his vehicle as “if it was his vehicle, it is game over,” before listing the evidence which states that it was the same make and model as Lacomba’s taxi.
• The flashes of light in car park 2 just minutes later which the prosecution allege is the car returning to Bazes Shaw
• CCTV capturing a light coming on downstairs in 22 Bazes Shaw and an occupant of the house stating that Miss Wellgreen wasn’t home and neither was Lacomba but the 39-year-old later returned to the house.

I didn't remember that testimony (bolded). - does it not say what *time* that light came on??
I'm not sure what this means (underlined) - car returns to Bazes Shaw just 2 minutes later?? Oh, after a same-vehicle being caught all those times on CCTV, then 2 minutes later, there was a flash of light in car park 2.. did B park at carpark#2 when he returned?? And I thought the cams didn't catch carpark#2?

 

[Mommysleuth11]

I didn't remember that testimony (bolded).
I'm not sure what this means (underlined) - car returns to Bazes Shaw just 2 minutes later?? Oh, after a same-vehicle being caught all those times on CCTV, then 2 minutes later, there was a flash of light in car park 2.. did B park at carpark#2 when he returned?? And I thought the cams didn't catch carpark#2?

It was light reflections in a neighbours window iirc.

 

[deugirtni]

I am surprised that B's lawyer gets to give his closing summation *last*, after the prosecution. Here in Canada, if the accused chooses to present a defence, that means he also gives up his right to be *last* giving his closing remarks, and the prosecution would go first last.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I didn't remember that testimony (bolded). - does it not say what *time* that light came on??
I'm not sure what this means (underlined) - car returns to Bazes Shaw just 2 minutes later?? Oh, after a same-vehicle being caught all those times on CCTV, then 2 minutes later, there was a flash of light in car park 2.. did B park at carpark#2 when he returned?? And I thought the cams didn't catch carpark#2?

Jury visits Sarah Wellgreen’s home where she spent her ‘last moments alive’

From earlier Kentlive article about Jury visit to Bazes Shaw : ( moo..'view' is a mistype in article)

:

The view then headed to the outside of number 32, which looks across the car park with a path running past the property and up to Lacomba's house.

It is alleged that Lacomba's return to Bazes Shaw at 4.52am, having disposed of Sarah's body, was captured by cameras showing the flash of his vehicle lights as it was locked.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

12:49


Prosecution: 'It was done, Sarah was gone, now he was going to try to bluff his way out of it'

Morning of October 10

“The first thing that you would be to do would be to call them (Sarah Wellgreen), to try and find them. There was no call to Sarah Wellgreen, no attempt at a call at any stage.”

The first call he made was to mum Marilyn Lacomba and she arrives at 7.38am but shortly leaves again 13 minutes later before returning.

Lacomba then does the school run but refuses client a lift at the very last minute as “the defendant’s car was dirty that morning” and “getting his car washed that very next morning is essential.”

Mud was on both sides of Lacomba’s vehicle.

Dirt can allegedly be seen above the wheel arches on Ben Lacomba's car


‘Terrible lie’

The story of how he bought the “grave digger’s shovel” as a present for his mum is described as a “terrible lie”, “one of the worst examples of the lies by this defendant to cover his tracks” and “complete nonsense” by Ms Morgan which he didn’t mention previously.

It had one use and that was “digging a large hole as quickly as possible” and there was “only one reason” why Lacomba would need to do that, says Ms Morgan.

His brown shoes were “missing” the following morning according to Lacomba so he wore a notably different pair of shoes.


On his demeanour at All Night Cars office that morning:

“He (Lacomba) could not have looked happier, it was done, Sarah was gone, now he was going to try to bluff his way out of it.”

Ms Morgan questions the “selective” information he gave to the police during the initial 999 call to report Miss Wellgreen missing.

She claims Lacomba had Sarah’s iPhone 4 on October 11 and was “busy using it to explain and try to implicate others”.

“Why did he get rid of Sarah’s phone during the course of that day?”