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

[Alyce]

From Deug's link above

Mr Lacomba told me that he had CCTV at the address but that when he woke the next morning, it was switched off.
“He told me he believed Sarah switched it off because she would not want him to see who she was going out with.

So he is claiming that SW went into his loft bedroom, while he was sleeping, to do this ?
SW had not taken her own car, so there was no need for her to walk down the side of the house to the car park and be caught on cctv - she could have taken a different route from the house in order to meet whoever BL claims she was meeting.

 

[deugirtni]

From Deug's link above

Mr Lacomba told me that he had CCTV at the address but that when he woke the next morning, it was switched off.
“He told me he believed Sarah switched it off because she would not want him to see who she was going out with.

So he is claiming that SW went into his loft bedroom, while he was sleeping, to do this ?
SW had not taken her own car, so there was no need for her to walk down the side of the house to the car park and be caught on cctv - she could have taken a different route from the house in order to meet whoever BL claims she was meeting.

Exactly. *Busted!*

 

[deugirtni]

I wonder if S's purses had little in them because BL had already cleared them out, or if that's just how they were?

ETA: Most women I know (including myself) have so much stuff in their bags, they need larger ones!

 

[deugirtni]

And sure.. she wanted to get back together with Ben. I'm sure.

“He said that although they were not together and had not been together for some time, they had a comfortable relationship to co-parent.

“Mr Lacomba told me that he believed Sarah wanted to get back in a relationship and he did not see that as an option.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I think if one of them *had* been living intimately with her, then there would be much less texting, ie NJ wouldn't have to text her in the morning to see how she is, since he would already know, etc.

Thats my point though Deu?

If you live 24/7 with someone, or share daily routines, then it would be unusual to not hear or see someone.

If you only text daily but arent exclusive, or dont have knowledge of someones daily, hourly routines etc then itvseems odd to me that someone not that involved would worry about an 8hr gap in communication. SW could have had extra appmnts at work, have decided to go visit someone, go to seaside, or just be having a bit of me time or down time?

Therefore I think there mustve been some concern for her safety beforehand?


OH = Other Half. Hubby/wife/partner etc

 

[Alyce]

Some people have an app on their computer/laptop/tablet(?) that can make all texts to the phone go to the computer/laptop.. if she had one (laptop perhaps?) at work or something, it is possible?

Yes I do that, so if she had a laptop elsewhere then it's a possibility. But am inclined to think he's not that smart and SVSs explanation that he sent a text ( to cover himself ) and then * says* he discovered her phones makes sense to me.

 

[deugirtni]

So right away, he has his mother sleeping in S's bed? I wonder if that would have tampered with evidence. ie.. if BL's hair or DNA or whatever was on the bed, it shouldn't have been if they were not living intimately/sleeping together.

Mr Lacomba told PC Manley that a children’s blanket was on the bed because Ben’s mum Marilyn had stayed in Sarah’s room on the night of October 10

 

[deugirtni]

Thats my point though Deu?

If you live 24/7 with someone, or share daily routines, then it would be unusual to not hear or see someone.

If you only text daily but arent exclusive, or dont have knowledge of someones daily, hourly routines etc then itvseems odd to me that someone not that involved would worry about an 8hr gap in communication. SW could have had extra appmnts at work, have decided to go visit someone, go to seaside, or just be having a bit of me time or down time?

Therefore I think there mustve been some concern for her safety beforehand?


OH = Other Half. Hubby/wife/partner etc

I'm just not sure where you're getting that Neil and Sarah weren't a couple though. I realize that some here don't believe Neil, however there hasn't really been any evidence to say that he *wasn't*. He obviously had enough of a relationship with her to feel comfortable enough to call and know Sarah's mother. Maybe we will learn more as the trial goes on, hopefully!

Also, if S had replied to his early morning text within about 4 hours.. perhaps there wouldn't have been a second or third text, etc. To me, I'm just saying that I don't think it necessarily implies there was pre-existing worry, but rather, there was an expectation from Neil that she would've replied by then.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes I do that, so if she had a laptop elsewhere then it's a possibility. But am inclined to think he's not that smart and SVSs explanation that he sent a text ( to cover himself ) and then * says* he discovered her phones makes sense to me.

I hope police have poked around to find out if S had a laptop or computer somewhere where she prhaps did have that app, so they would still be able to see all of her texts, even though BL had disposed of her phones...
Which brings me to wonder.. was it mentioned that BL had disposed of BOTH of S's phones??

 

[Alyce]

I hope police have poked around to find out if S had a laptop or computer somewhere where she prhaps did have that app, so they would still be able to see all of her texts, even though BL had disposed of her phones...
Which brings me to wonder.. was it mentioned that BL had disposed of BOTH of S's phones??

I don't remember hearing that, I just remember the comment about the police going back for her phone, singular. Hope that gets clarified during the trial

 

[deugirtni]

Thats my point though Deu?

If you live 24/7 with someone, or share daily routines, then it would be unusual to not hear or see someone.

If you only text daily but arent exclusive, or dont have knowledge of someones daily, hourly routines etc then itvseems odd to me that someone not that involved would worry about an 8hr gap in communication. SW could have had extra appmnts at work, have decided to go visit someone, go to seaside, or just be having a bit of me time or down time?

Therefore I think there mustve been some concern for her safety beforehand?


OH = Other Half. Hubby/wife/partner etc

Also.. I was saying the reverse.. in my mind, I think that couples who are lovers but not living together yet, text/communicate by electronic means way more often than couples who actually live together.. because there just isn't the need then.. and especially since Neil and Sarah lived far apart. Also, a couple who has been living together/married for a number of years may not be in as big of a rush to get back to their spouse, as someone in the midst of 'romance'. I also believe it totally depends on the particular relationship. Some couples I know, both living together and not, text all day long while at work.. while others seem to be able to manage well enough in their lives without the constant communication with their partner. But in any event, I don't think Neil was being stalky by texting over again hours later when he hadn't heard back from her yet, but just my opinion.

 

[Alyce]

So right away, he has his mother sleeping in S's bed? I wonder if that would have tampered with evidence. ie.. if BL's hair or DNA or whatever was on the bed, it shouldn't have been if they were not living intimately/sleeping together.

Mr Lacomba told PC Manley that a children’s blanket was on the bed because Ben’s mum Marilyn had stayed in Sarah’s room on the night of October 10

That made me feel uncomfortable. He hasn't even reported her missing at that point but has mum staying over already. Surely he was used to taking care of his children as SW often worked away from home.
Plus mum had to use a children's blanket ? really ? why not just get some more adult size bedding out.
And the child's blanket could - legitimately - have BLs dna on it

 

[Legally Bland]

Car keys were found in her “relatively empty” handbag. Lacomba said the car keys also had keys to the property on the same keyring which he described as “strange” as she wouldn’t be able to get back into the address.

I did think this may be a lie, but it looks like there's a Yale lock on the door, so in theory SW could have left the house without keys and have the door lock behind her. (Assuming the deadbolts weren't locked.)

Sarah Wellgreen ‘murdered by ex in calculated way to avoid detection’

 

[deugirtni]

40 minute 999 call by Ben Lacomba

I wonder if the court will release this - (40 minutes, wow!)?

 

[deugirtni]

That made me feel uncomfortable. He hasn't even reported her missing at that point but has mum staying over already. Surely he was used to taking care of his children as SW often worked away from home.
Plus mum had to use a children's blanket ? really ? why not just get some more adult size bedding out.
And the child's blanket could - legitimately - have BLs dna on it

I was thinking that one of the children had been in the bedroom with it to see the grandmother, not that the grandmother had needed it - wouldn't there have already been enough blankets on the bed... now this suggests something AGAIN.. did BL wrap S in one of her blankets from her bed, requiring his mother to get a blanket from elsewhere? Afterall, it was only ONE NIGHT later, it's not like the seasons changed to suddenly require more blankets to keep warm enough. Hmm.

 

[deugirtni]

I did think this may be a lie, but it looks like there's a Yale lock on the door, so in theory SW could have left the house without keys and have the door lock behind her. (Assuming the deadbolts weren't locked.)
View attachment 208056

Sarah Wellgreen ‘murdered by ex in calculated way to avoid detection’

Is this a photo of the old door before it was bashed down by police, or the new replacement door?

 

[deugirtni]

I did think this may be a lie, but it looks like there's a Yale lock on the door, so in theory SW could have left the house without keys and have the door lock behind her. (Assuming the deadbolts weren't locked.)
View attachment 208056

Sarah Wellgreen ‘murdered by ex in calculated way to avoid detection’

If S knew the doors would lock behind her, then why on earth would she not take her keys? Again the man is busted! He should've taken the keys, as well as the cellphone (minus the battery!)!

 

[deugirtni]

16:14Andy Robinson
PC Manley describes what happened before she returned to the station

“He seemed agitated as I lifted the suitcase. He said “that’s mine” and “that means she’s been in my bedroom”.

She looked in the suitcase and it had children’s clothes inside.

PC Manley put the wheeled suitcase back in the car and went back into the house with Lacomba before telling him she would leave to speak to another officer.

She then returned to the address after telling Lacomba she would be back in “two or three minutes”. The door was locked and was not answered for “a good few seconds”. “It sounded like there was a chain that was unbolting. It didn’t sound like a normal lock. It sounded like he was struggling.”

Lacomba said he would be returning to work “which I found quite strange as we had established that Sarah was without keys or a bank card” but he was adamant to go back to work.

PC Manley leaves at 12.40pm to return to Swanley police station.

 

[Legally Bland]

Is this a photo of the old door before it was bashed down by police, or the new replacement door?

It's the old one, here it is smashed:

Sarah Wellgreen's ex seen after cops smash into home following new info

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Also.. I was saying the reverse.. in my mind, I think that couples who are lovers but not living together yet, text/communicate by electronic means way more often than couples who actually live together.. because there just isn't the need then.. and especially since Neil and Sarah lived far apart. Also, a couple who has been living together/married for a number of years may not be in as big of a rush to get back to their spouse, as someone in the midst of 'romance'. I also believe it totally depends on the particular relationship. Some couples I know, both living together and not, text all day long while at work.. while others seem to be able to manage well enough in their lives without the constant communication with their partner. But in any event, I don't think Neil was being stalky by texting over again hours later when he hadn't heard back from her yet, but just my opinion.

I think we agree deu, just conclusions are different

I dont find it odd that NJ text a few times etc, its just how he responded with such alarm and urgency to getting no response from attempted contact that strikes me as alarmist/ over intense.

( Again though, on this occ with v good reason as it turned out!)