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

[Spy Versus Spy]

16:37

'Sarah Wellgreen’s fate is not in your hands. Ben Lacomba’s is'

“Our criminal justice system has survived, thrived and developed over hundreds of years to protect us all but also to protect us of crimes we have not committed. Sarah Wellgreen’s fate is not in your hands. Ben Lacomba’s is. He is in your charge.

“This will be one of the most important decisions that you will ever make.

“To convict Ben Lacomba of murder, you must be sure that Sarah Wellgreen is definitely dead and to be sure that the only explanation for her death is that Ben Lacomba is responsible for her murder.”

 

[Alyce]

Many thanks for all the updates today SVS

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

16:52


Court has finished for the day


Court concludes and will resume at noon tomorrow (October 22)

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Many thanks for all the updates today SVS

Ty Alyce . Hope you enjoyed your Day Off


A lot of interesting stuff in the Defence closing statement to mull over.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

16:25

Defence: 'This case is riddled with uncertainty'

“The chain of evidence that the prosecution has laid out is flawed.



Back to whether she left 22 Bazes Shaw on her own accord:

“If you come to the conclusion that Sarah Wellgreen may have been killed that night, you may also want to consider who Sarah was going out with for a drink.

“You have to ask did she walk out with her iPhone because that is the one thing she would need if she was meeting up with someone from a dating app.

“If something terrible happened to her having met up with someone that we don’t know about, that would also explain why there is no trace of a killing at 22 Bazes Shaw, why Mr Lacomba was not seen or heard by any residents carrying a body through a housing estate and why her body has never been found.

“This case is riddled with uncertainty. If she is dead, and if so, how she came to be.

“You may think that Susan Birchell’s evidence leaves those questions of if and how wide open.

“Mr Lacomba on the other hand on October 16 was plainly thinking that Sarah might be coming back.

“Why else would he be at Dartford County Court getting an interim order.”

Lacomba was arrested outside Dartford County Court on October 16, 2018 (Image: Google)

Except his solicitor gave evidence to say he was seeking advice re an order for his mother in the event he would be arrested, that was his concern. Indeed she said he expressed 'surprise' at the suggestion he would need an order 'in case she came back'.
The defence barrister is frustrating me, i hope the Jury can see through her very filtered summing up!

 

[Alyce]

16:52


Court has finished for the day


Court concludes and will resume at noon tomorrow (October 22)

So looks like they won't send the Jury out before Wednesday

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

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


So its finally been confirmed that the messages he showed the police officer in his haste to pin it on everyone but himself were on the iphone

 

[deugirtni]

So looks like they won't send the Jury out before Wednesday

Court is not scheduled to begin until noon tomorrow (22nd). If the judge felt his instructions to the jury would last a full day, I'm guessing he would want to do it all in one day, rather than split it up, for ease of remembering it all together for the Jurors. Wouldn't the judge then excuse them to commence deliberations after tomorrow's (Tues) instructions? Why would he make it go into another court day first?

 

[deugirtni]

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


So its finally been confirmed that the messages he showed the police officer in his haste to pin it on everyone but himself were on the iphone

I am not getting that that confirms any such thing. It's too bad we're not getting every word. I'm getting that the defence is accusing the prosecution of trying to portray that those msgs came from the iphone4 which was absent, when in fact they were on one of the phones which he obviously had in his possession during the police visits. I can't believe only one media outlet is reporting on this case/trial!

 

[deugirtni]

Deug, it's not 2 minutes later, it's Car Park 2

Guess I was dyslexic this morning ;/ In any case, it says 'minutes later'. I was confused as to what they were talking about at that minute, then realized they were talking about once the camera lost last contact with what is purported to have been B's car, it was 2 minutes later when light was seen. But earlier on, I thought they said it had been 20 minutes later when they saw another flash which the prosecution purported to be B locking his car. At the time I read whatever it was that gave me that impression, I had wondered why so long. ??

 

[Alyce]

Court is not scheduled to begin until noon tomorrow (22nd). If the judge felt his instructions to the jury would last a full day, I'm guessing he would want to do it all in one day, rather than split it up, for ease of remembering it all together for the Jurors. Wouldn't the judge then excuse them to commence deliberations after tomorrow's (Tues) instructions? Why would he make it go into another court day first?

Prosecution and Defence both did about 2 hours closing. So I would expect the Judge to do at least 3 hours.

As they begin at noon, and allowing that they will have some kind of lunch/afternoon tea break, then this should take them to about 4pm. At which time he could send them out but it is also possible he will end for the day, then do a 10 minute final briefing on Wednesday morning, before sending them out.
Of course, I could be wrong and he may get them out tomorrow afternoon, but I can't see them having much time to do anything other than introduce themselves and choose a foreperson. So the real work won't start until Wednesday.

 

[Alyce]

Guess I was dyslexic this morning ;/ In any case, it says 'minutes later'. I was confused as to what they were talking about at that minute, then realized they were talking about once the camera lost last contact with what is purported to have been B's car, it was 2 minutes later when light was seen. But earlier on, I thought they said it had been 20 minutes later when they saw another flash which the prosecution purported to be B locking his car. At the time I read whatever it was that gave me that impression, I had wondered why so long. ??

Yes, I also remember 20 minutes was reported and wondered why it was so long. Perhaps it was only 2 minutes- or a few minutes - and the earlier reporting was a typo.

 

[Noseyjosie]

Yes, I also remember 20 minutes was reported and wondered why it was so long. Perhaps it was only 2 minutes- or a few minutes - and the earlier reporting was a typo.

I took it to mean that the CCTV picked up the reflection of headlights in windows of number 32 a few minutes after last CCTV footage of the car on it's return journey, then flashes of the car being locked 20+ minutes later - with the lights in number 22 turned off in the meantime.
I assumed it meant he came home, saw lights on indoors so went inside, got child back to bed then went out to empty/tidy the car and lock it. JMO

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Court is not scheduled to begin until noon tomorrow (22nd). If the judge felt his instructions to the jury would last a full day, I'm guessing he would want to do it all in one day, rather than split it up, for ease of remembering it all together for the Jurors. Wouldn't the judge then excuse them to commence deliberations after tomorrow's (Tues) instructions? Why would he make it go into another court day first?[/QUOTE]

BBM

+1 Lunch

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

I am not getting that that confirms any such thing. It's too bad we're not getting every word. I'm getting that the defence is accusing the prosecution of trying to portray that those msgs came from the iphone4 which was absent, when in fact they were on one of the phones which he obviously had in his possession during the police visits. I can't believe only one media outlet is reporting on this case/trial!

Ok worded wrong ...we finally found out was she was implying when talking about the txt messages received

 

[Mommysleuth11]

I am not getting that that confirms any such thing. It's too bad we're not getting every word. I'm getting that the defence is accusing the prosecution of trying to portray that those msgs came from the iphone4 which was absent, when in fact they were on one of the phones which he obviously had in his possession during the police visits. I can't believe only one media outlet is reporting on this case/trial!

Because the message logs showed imessages when the other phones were android.

 

[mrazda71]

Because the message logs showed imessages when the other phones were android.

I think it's been stated that Sarah and Neil communicated via i-message - this can ONLY happen between 2 iPhones (or apple devices possibly?) SO ... IF Ben is talking about messages that he'd seen from Neil or others using i-messsge then he MUST have had Sarah's iphone to see the messages and then got rid of that phone too ...

 

[Mrs Marple]

It's going to be a long jury sitting imho.

 

[RosalindaA]

So I've been thinking about all the circumstantial evidence ... maybe one or two of these alone shouldn't get a guilty verdict but all of these?

Who would benefit in several ways, from Sarah being 'lost' ? Ben

Who took 2 days to report her missing and only then at the insistence of others? Ben?

Who had easy access to Sarah the night she was last known to be alive and well? Ben

Who had access to turn off the CCTV? Ben

Who had checked out the view of 22 Bazes Shaw from neighbours CCTV? Ben

Who drove his car past 8 free spaces to a car park further from his door but with no CCTV coverage? Ben

Who had access to a grave digger shovel allegedly bought as a Christmas gift for his mature disabled mother but not to be kept at her house? Ben

Who admitted that he STILL kept a file of nasty messages he'd compiled to Sarah months/years before but then tells us they're a 'great team' and BFF's? Ben

Who's phones were active during a time when the owner was according to them 'asleep'? Ben

Who, according to a reliable witness, was NOT at home when he claims he was 'in bed asleep'? Ben

Who was desperate to hide phones and deleted data from Police? Ben

Who had his car super cleaned the day following Sarah's disappearance? Ben?

Who was more Interested in filing court papers than looking for his children's mother? Ben

Who 'lost' his shoes for 4 days? Ben

Who was desperate enough to run after the police, demanding their phones back and then smashed them and chucked them in the Thames? Ben

Who didn't try to find Sarah at any point? Ben

Who didn't react at all, not a single word, when being arrested/charged with the murder of Sarah? Ben

Who now claims that he REALLY wanted to help police but was advised to 'no comment' by his solicitor? Ben

Who could've had access to Ben's shed to put a wet PJ top on a shelf that wasn't there when police initially searched? Ben or maybe Bens Mummy

Put aside the devils advocate in you and tell me honestly, is the car seen 8 or more times on cctv during the middle of the night that Sarah disappeared, when Ben was allegedly asleep, Ben's taxi?

Do I believe that Sarah was suicidal? No

Do I believe that Sarah would knowingly put her children, parents and friends through this Hell? No

Have I missed anything?

Still sleepless in the New Forest so I'm grateful for Mrazda detailing everything that has accumulated against Lacomba. Chiefly for me it's a) the insane disposal of the phones, what on earth was on there that you would do such a crazily incriminating thing? And b) just as importantly, the testimony of the child, who can be proud of themselves that they told the truth even though they must have felt quite conflicted about it.
I remember saying right back at the beginning that I thought it was very likely that the children probably knew a lot about what went on in the house that night and that the delay in charging Lacomba was possibly to do with waiting for these traumatized children to talk. And hoping that searchers would locate Sarah's body.
For some people there may be a "reasonable doubt" in this case, it's a highly subjective concept. I think I read the jury is 8 men, 4 women, which IMO is not ideal for this case where Sarah's private life has been exposed and used by the defence to insinuate that of course a woman like that might just decide to abandon everything as she is "man-mad". Insulting to the victim and her children.
Lacomba would have been on a surer footing had he staged a suicide. The reported overdose of Temazepam at only 14 years old sticks out to me as pretty significant in a psychiatric history and does suggest a troubled childhood and adolescence and/or an innate pre-disposition to depression. And is maybe a clue as to why Sarah seemed to seek love and affection from men. But he chose to go with the old chestnut "I woke up and she had run off with another bloke" because I think this reflects his feelings about her. Furious about her other relationships, her ability to move on, get a decent job, when he was not in the position he no doubt thinks he should be.
What I don't understand is why police didn't put a tracker on his car in the early days. I am sure he went back to check the ""dumpsite". Wouldn't this be worth doing in every case where a spouse is suspected of harming a partner or ex? And wouldn't a taxi have GPS tracking anyway?
I'm guessing fairly long jury deliberations which I think is appropriate for this case. Even if convicted I'm not sure Lacomba will ever confess, he will need allies on the outside and so will want to leave his parents able to believe in his innocence.

 

[deugirtni]

Prosecution and Defence both did about 2 hours closing. So I would expect the Judge to do at least 3 hours.

As they begin at noon, and allowing that they will have some kind of lunch/afternoon tea break, then this should take them to about 4pm. At which time he could send them out but it is also possible he will end for the day, then do a 10 minute final briefing on Wednesday morning, before sending them out.
Of course, I could be wrong and he may get them out tomorrow afternoon, but I can't see them having much time to do anything other than introduce themselves and choose a foreperson. So the real work won't start until Wednesday.

Do your jurors get sequestered?