UK UK - Sarah Wellgreen, 46, Kent, 9 Oct 2018

[deugirtni]

If that is the correct location for the cctv footage of the car, it looks as if it was not parked on the actual mudflats but a road. I thought the wet surface was the actual muddy banks of the Thames but perhaps it was the lights shining on rainwater on the road surface.

I am confused as well, as it appears the car would have been crossways on the road, blocking it, when in the photo it looks to be at water's edge, on the shore or something. Can someone please post a googlemap link so we can see how close to the water that road is?

 

[deugirtni]

I've been wondering what that was, I thought it looked like it could be a trailer on the car but it makes sense if it was another car parked at the side of the road. It looks to me then with the subject car being crosswise on the road that it isn't parked but captured during a three point turn in the road maybe. I can't make out if that is a driver in the front, or a seat with a head rest.

It's a whole lot different than I imagined originally, with a car parked on the mudflats with lights shining out onto the Thames, which would be quite a suspicious place to be. This location next to residences involves more physical effort to dispose of a body, and more chance of being seen.

MOO

Sorry, I'm late to the party!

I think the thing you might be referring to in the 'front', is actually the mirror from the opposite side of the vehicle.

And yes, that would be quite a distance to drag a body, wouldn't it? I am just a few behind, so I will see if more area map has been posted to see how close that roadway is to the water, where the 'hooded figure' was seen. But nothing like blocking off a road to ditch a body.. another vehicle comes along, can't get by.. oops.. just give me a minute sir, until I finish disposing the body, I'll be right up to move my car!

 

[Legally Bland]

I am confused as well, as it appears the car would have been crossways on the road, blocking it, when in the photo it looks to be at water's edge, on the shore or something. Can someone please post a googlemap link so we can see how close to the water that road is?

Google Maps

If you plan to the left you should be able to see the light blue area of the playground next to where police were seen searching, here:

Thanks, I didn't realise we had better pics and info. I've been up and down the south bank of the Thames in Kent today trying to find where the CCTV was taken from (not that there's much to go on).

So this is one of the search areas:

View attachment 161963 (click to expand)
Google Maps

Based on this pic:

Divers search River Thames in bid to find mum

 

[deugirtni]

Does this picture here of the hooded man not look like there are those metal barriers used to separate the directions of traffic on motorways - both pictures for comparison

I'm not seeing the metal barriers in the 'hooded man pic'.. I see the road (presumably the road), the fence, and a bunch of 'brush'... I'd like to see more of the immediate area that was found on googlemaps... one thing that doesn't seem to quite match, it perhaps the distance between the 'sara crescent' sign and the 'opening' in the fence. It would also be good to see if there is brush or a garden with large woody type plants right at the roadway, as pictured in the hooded man pic.

 

[deugirtni]

Google Maps

If you plan to the left you should be able to see the light blue area of the playground next to where police were seen searching, here:

You have done amazing work here!
I think you have it spot on!
I see the woody type plants ... right near where the vehicle was parked..
So basically everything matches..
So this would be indicating.. that BL's vehicle was there.. near the water, and that he'd gotten out of the vehicle a couple of times..
Okay.. bear with me here..
---
Somehow... the news got ahold of this information and these pics that were published.. BUT...
I really don't believe that the exact photos that were published in MSM are the same ones that police would be using in their 'evidence'.. for very obvious reasons..
What I am imagining happened here... is that BL (as the hooded figure).. may have been seen via CCTV AT the water's edge.. but not these particular showings.. and they have instead showed his car perhaps LEAVING the parking area, rather than that it was parked.. because obviously he couldn't have, and wouldn't have parked crossways on a road, to make such an obvious spectacle of himself while doing some nasty deed like that.
I wonder where MSM gets their info sometimes, and obviously how much they embellish it and sensationalize it, and configure it to fit the story they're trying to convey. Disgusting antics, really.
But considering that police WERE actually searching that very area, but obviously closer to the water's edge.. I think there is *something* to this, just that we're not getting the actual story or details. Perhaps they thought he'd pitched the phone into the water. (And for all we know, they may have even found it, and we would never know... and... if they DID find it, that could *possibly* explain how they suddenly had enough to charge him with murder..... or not!!)

In any case, you have done an amazing job at locating this area!

ETA Oops, I meant to add the googlemaps picture showing a little more of the immediate area, which also shows the woody type plants which are pictured in the 'grainy' photos published. - from your googlemap link

 

[jessie]

I'm thinking the CCTV pics came from the office building across the road. TransGlobal offices? There looks like CCTV camera on that building (from LB's google map link pan right )

 

[deugirtni]

I'm thinking the CCTV pics came from the office building across the road. TransGlobal offices? There looks like CCTV camera on that building (from LB's google map link pan right )

I think the camera would have had to be more behind, rather than in front of BL's vehicle.. (if I am thinking you mean the building 'across' the road?).. but in any case, it would only make sense for at least one or more cameras to be on such an area.. even perhaps the individual unit dwellers may have had their own cams attached somewhere... and after viewing, perhaps called whatever they found, in as tips.

 

[Tortoise]

deleted

 

[Tortoise]

I think I've found the camera. On the edge of the sloping roof next to the drainpipe.

Google Maps

 

[Legally Bland]

I think I've found the camera. On the edge of the sloping roof next to the drainpipe.

Google Maps

That looks pretty much perfect for the angle to me.

 

[jessie]

I think I've found the camera. On the edge of the sloping roof next to the drainpipe.

Google Maps

Well done Tortoise.

 

[SJ16321]

It always amazes me that we have so much CCTV in the UK but most of it is dreadful quality as we see here!

 

[Legally Bland]

I wonder what the tide levels were on the night of the 9th October.

I'll have a google. I think if the tide was high he'd be more likely to be disposing of something. If it was low tide he'd be more likely to be looking to see if something had washed up.

With that part of the Thames being tidal, does that mean things can be washed upstream?

ETA: I suppose he may have had no idea of the tide levels, I'm assuming a bit here.

 

[Tortoise]

I'll have a google. I think if the tide was high he'd be more likely to be disposing of something. If it was low tide he'd be more likely to be looking to see if something had washed up.

With that part of the Thames being tidal, does that mean things can be washed upstream?

ETA: I suppose he may have had no idea of the tide levels, I'm assuming a bit here.

The newspaper says "The footage, which was filmed five days after the beautician was last seen", so that would be the night of Sunday 14th October.

Police hunt mysterious hooded figure in search for missing mum Sarah Wellgreen

 

[Alyce]

I'll have a google. I think if the tide was high he'd be more likely to be disposing of something. If it was low tide he'd be more likely to be looking to see if something had washed up.

With that part of the Thames being tidal, does that mean things can be washed upstream?

ETA: I suppose he may have had no idea of the tide levels, I'm assuming a bit here.

just popping in and back out - great work Legally - here's a tide link, probably others available

Stone (Dartford) Tide Times, Kent DA9 9 - WillyWeather

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks Alyce!

Tuesday 9th October

Low tide 8:51pm

Wednesday 10th October

High tide 2:30am
Low tide 9:06am


Sunday 14th October

High tide 5:17pm
Low tide 11:15pm

Monday 15th October

High tide 5:32am

 

[jessie]

From the official SW site Search for Sarah Wellgreen:
so hope it is OK to post here: -

COURT ORDER
On 21st December 2018 A Section 45 order was passed by the courts which prevents the identification of Sarah Wellgreen’s children.

The order prevents anything which may identify the children, including their ages and where they currently live.

Whilst we fully understand that some of these details were released by the press and mentioned online prior to the order, it now stands that there is to be no mention of the children’s names and actual ages going forwards.

 

[Legally Bland]

From the official SW site Search for Sarah Wellgreen:
so hope it is OK to post here: -

COURT ORDER
On 21st December 2018 A Section 45 order was passed by the courts which prevents the identification of Sarah Wellgreen’s children.

The order prevents anything which may identify the children, including their ages and where they currently live.

Whilst we fully understand that some of these details were released by the press and mentioned online prior to the order, it now stands that there is to be no mention of the children’s names and actual ages going forwards.

That's not good.

• Under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) a criminal court may make an order preventing the publication of information that identifies a child or young person as being a victim, witness or defendant in the proceedings.

Reporting restrictions in the criminal courts (quick reference guide) | The Transparency Project

 

[jessie]

Are you referring to the possibility that one or more of the children may be a witness?

Just to add, I thought as it covers social media as well it was just in the protective interests of the children?

 

[Legally Bland]

Are you referring to the possibility that one or more of the children may be a witness?

Just to add, I thought as it covers social media as well it was just in the protective interests of the children?

Possibly, hopefully they'll just be witness to movements etc. if they are.