- Joined
- Feb 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,465
- Reaction score
- 5,779
Tyvm Hey L and Alyce for your reporting. Fab.
SvS
SvS
Surely if the prosecution had DNA evidence from within BL's vehicle, she would have said so in her opening remarks? If there *was no* DNA, then how could that be so? I mean like blood evidence, or proof of cadaver.. or proof that she'd been in the trunk or something.
Ok, so looking at that route makes me think that poor Sarah could have ended up in the landfill. One thing we learned from the Corrie case was that bodies are extremely difficult to find in landfill - and if BL had been planning this for a while I'm sure he'd have been very interested in such a high profile missing person case. JMO but there looks to be many, many places along that route, or closer to home, to dispose of a body so why go that far? Also, I think the disposal site says a lot about the feelings the killer has towards the victim - and I think he saw Sarah as trash, rubbish etc so landfill would appeal I think as a kind of final "f*** you"
JMO etc
This one?Is there a map of the route ?
While I agree that any DNA evidence would be presented later in the case, I believe the prosecutor would have stated something during opening remarks that would indicate their presence, ie just by mentioning it without proving it. ie 'S's DNA was found in his trunk', or 'cadaver dogs noted an area inside the trunk', or something to that effect, without going into any more detail. Methinks there may not end up being any DNA evidence, but just my guess based on opening statement.Seeing the first day of the prosecution case in black and white, it looks like a compelling charge based on strong circumstantial evidence?
As others have said, cant believe both the phones were allowed to be dumped.
I agree that the ringing Mum first rather than SW is damning, but for me its the lies about being in bed asleep all Night when its clearly established imo that he was out, probably disposing of body....the cctv footage..the 2hr gap until reappearing on cctv..the mud on car , the child statement about waking up to neither parent in house etc.
No body, no DNA or forensics in car have been stated, not guilty plea....interesting to see how Today pans out.
Eta...Alyce points out DNA etc may usually be presented later in case.
Oops sorry, quoted wrong post, meant to quote this one:While I agree that any DNA evidence would be presented later in the case, I believe the prosecutor would have stated something during opening remarks that would indicate their presence, ie just by mentioning it without proving it. ie 'S's DNA was found in his trunk', or 'cadaver dogs noted an area inside the trunk', or something to that effect, without going into any more detail. Methinks there may not end up being any DNA evidence, but just my guess based on opening statement.
The Opening address usually provides a basic overview of the case.
The specific details, such as DNA, will be supplied later, when the forensic guys give evidence.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.