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

[Alyce]

Re the wet top and Josie's post re found on shelf in shed. I can't find the msm link now but I also read one report that said it was found in the shed.

Maybe it was a typo and the journo meant to say shelf.

 

[Legally Bland]

Did you see it say in the 'shed'? This is all I saw regarding the wet/damp pyjama top:

15:46

Lacomba arrested and charged

On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers. “Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?”

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf.

Alison Morgan said: “We suggest to you it was not there when searches were conducted on an earlier date. That top was wet to the touch to the point that the officers noticed it.”

Police were pictured searching Sarah Wellgreen's home after forcing entry (Image: Jim Bennett)
‘Nothing to suggest Sarah is alive’

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

I think Kentlive must have updated this post to include "in the shed". I can't remember reading that, I assumed it was in the bedroom.
_______________

15:46
Lacomba arrested and charged
On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers.

“Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?” questions Alison Morgan.

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf in the shed.

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

 

[deugirtni]

I think they may be saying that in the investigation/prosecutions proposed narrative, it was the last text SW received when alive/conscious/able to read it ?

If later texts were sent but not read then the last read text could be presumed to be the last proveable point of that person being alive?

Although as BL went through the phone, would he have opened texts that were unread at that point ( i.e the ones SW never got to see)

Eta last 2 paragraphs

I'm thinking perhaps the reporter got it wrong? How can a 'received' text be considered proof of life at a given point in time? Especially when they don't even have S's phone? Even a text 'sent' at a given time that night would be difficult to say for sure came from her, under the circumstances (unless of course, she was calling the accused fat or something derogatory??)? I guess as suggested, it could be the last text sent or received which was not seeking her out, ie 'where are you'? Who knows. Would be nice to have a little better reporting, although I'm thankful for what we've got.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I'm thinking perhaps the reporter got it wrong? How can a 'received' text be considered proof of life at a given point in time? Especially when they don't even have S's phone? Even a text 'sent' at a given time that night would be difficult to say for sure came from her, under the circumstances (unless of course, she was calling the accused fat or something derogatory??)? I guess as suggested, it could be the last text sent or received which was not seeking her out, ie 'where are you'? Who knows. Would be nice to have a little better reporting, although I'm thankful for what we've got.

Im still always suprised at the poor quality of reporting in the written media, especially local coverage but also the Nationals. Not just on trials but when investigations are live.

Shocking.

Editorial Interpreration is one thing, sloppy, lazy, approximate reporting another. Especially when quoting facts or statements , as all outlets have the same original source, be it written or spoken .

Should be fined in the most serious examples

 

[deugirtni]

I think Kentlive must have updated this post to include "in the shed". I can't remember reading that, I assumed it was in the bedroom.
_______________

15:46
Lacomba arrested and charged
On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers.

“Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?” questions Alison Morgan.

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf in the shed.

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

I wonder if that has significance? ie, is it possible he got her out to the shed that night, but then disposed of her at a later time? I wonder if he may have purchased some plastic sheeting and been busy in there with a saw or something? They didn't alert police she was missing until Thursday.. I wonder if police looked for evidence of his activity *after* that night she went missing? I wonder if B hosed off the PJ top using the outdoor hose (if there was one)? I'm sure the dogs would've alerted if she'd been stored in the shed, or chopped up in the shed. Why the PJ top there, as opposed to with her body? We were speculating that perhaps one of the kids would notice it missing or something? But surely it wouldn't have been noticed anyway, sitting in the shed?

 

[littlemo2015]

I'm thinking perhaps the reporter got it wrong? How can a 'received' text be considered proof of life at a given point in time? Especially when they don't even have S's phone? Even a text 'sent' at a given time that night would be difficult to say for sure came from her, under the circumstances (unless of course, she was calling the accused fat or something derogatory??)? I guess as suggested, it could be the last text sent or received which was not seeking her out, ie 'where are you'? Who knows. Would be nice to have a little better reporting, although I'm thankful for what we've got.

i think the confusion is because of a lot of the technical words they use and the ways its being described in court which is leading the report to word it how they are , but what it actually means is that the person that texted S saying good night sweetie has confirmed a back and forth texting chat between them and S and the good night sweetie was the last message that person sent in response to a good night from S to end the conversation that evening , and there is no trace after that of S actively talking , texting or chatting with anyone else or on social media as after that point she no longer replied to anyone or has used her social media accounts or dating apps at all since that night and because they could confirm with the person S was texting how long before the good night text they sent S did they last hear back from her by text is how they have confirmed the last know moment she did something that shows she was alive and well .

i could be wrong but that's how it seems to me .

 

[Alyce]

Agree SVS - I noticed the reference to council earlier instead of counsel

 

[Alyce]

I wonder if that has significance? ie, is it possible he got her out to the shed that night, but then disposed of her at a later time? I wonder if he may have purchased some plastic sheeting and been busy in there with a saw or something? They didn't alert police she was missing until Thursday.. I wonder if police looked for evidence of his activity *after* that night she went missing? I wonder if B hosed off the PJ top using the outdoor hose (if there was one)? I'm sure the dogs would've alerted if she'd been stored in the shed, or chopped up in the shed. Why the PJ top there, as opposed to with her body? We were speculating that perhaps one of the kids would notice it missing or something? But surely it wouldn't have been noticed anyway, sitting in the shed?

If he put her in the shed, he would then have to take her body back through the house in order to take it somewhere else. There is no back way out of that garden. He worked on October 10 but came home mid afternoon and his mother would be his alibi from then on, as she was at the house.
He says he was sick and went to bed but then, later in the evening, he dealt with messages from LB and NJ - so that should give him an alibi of being at home, unless location services were turned off or someone else was responding on his behalf.
Once he reported SW missing on October 11, I don't think he would have had the opportunity to move a body as the police did not always announce themselves when they went to the house.

I still think the disposal was the early hours of October 10, as per the cctv footage of the car.

I agree, the top is a puzzle. If he needed to keep it - to possibly avoid the children saying that the top was what SW was wearing on the night of October 9 - and if it was wet from the same source of wet that was seen in the bedroom ( highly likely ) then perhaps he put it into the shed to dry out. Although leaving it rolled up was not exactly going to help in that respect.

 

[Alyce]

Final update from this morning


15:05
'There were two ways to walk'

Another witness to take the stand was a young man who Lacomba, a taxi driver, often took to college in his red taxi.

The 18-year-old told the court he arrived at Bazes Shaw five minutes late for his lift on October 10 at 8.20am.

He was questioned by Alison Morgan for the prosecution.

Ms Morgan said: “When you got there at 20 past 8, did you see Sarah Wellgreen’s vehicle.”

The teenager answered: “I’m not really sure. I didn’t see the taxi.”

After a flurry of questions, the court heard the teenager had gone to the door of 22 Bazes Shaw and knocked around three times.

The witness explained a couple of minutes later, Lacomba’s mum Marilyn appeared in an upstairs window and said Lacomba wasn’t there.

The witness said he went home and received a lift from his mother.

The following day the witness said he went back to the house to receive a lift as normal, arriving at 8.15am.

He said Lacomba’s taxi was there, he can’t remember who answered the door but did he receive a lift that morning.

The witness told the court that during the journey: “The only unusual thing was Ben could no longer take me to college. He said he was losing money by giving me a lift.

“He told me I couldn’t come to his house anymore because he couldn’t give me any more lifts because Sarah wasn’t helping financially.”



Defence barrister Rebecca Trowler asked the witness whether he remembers Lacomba explaining he was losing jobs by giving him a lift.

The witness is uncertain but confirms he didn’t get another lift with Lacomba.


Ms Trowler said: “Generally, in September last year and beginning of October, it’s right isn’t it that Mr Lacomba’s car was sometimes in the car park to the side of the house and sometimes in the car park just a little bit further on from the house?”


The witness replied: “Yes.”
Ms Trowler pointed to a map in the witnesses pack, pointing out where car park 1 and the further-afield car park 2 are located.

She asked: “When you were going to the taxi in car park 2, which way would you walk?”



The witness answered: “We would go past 23 or either go…”



Ms Trowler interjected: “So there are two ways? Past 23 and the other along path going between 23 and 26.”



The witness replied: “Yes




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

 

[littlemo2015]

If he put her in the shed, he would then have to take her body back through the house in order to take it somewhere else. There is no back way out of that garden. He worked on October 10 but came home mid afternoon and his mother would be his alibi from then on, as she was at the house.
He says he was sick and went to bed but then, later in the evening, he dealt with messages from LB and NJ - so that should give him an alibi of being at home, unless location services were turned off or someone else was responding on his behalf.
Once he reported SW missing on October 11, I don't think he would have had the opportunity to move a body as the police did not always announce themselves when they went to the house.

I still think the disposal was the early hours of October 10, as per the cctv footage of the car.

I agree, the top is a puzzle. If he needed to keep it - to possibly avoid the children saying that the top was what SW was wearing on the night of October 9 - and if it was wet from the same source of wet that was seen in the bedroom ( highly likely ) then perhaps he put it into the shed to dry out. Although leaving it rolled up was not exactly going to help in that respect.

i think the top isn't as big a puzzle as we might think it is , if for example(and this is just speculation on what my mind is think and all MOO) she was in the bathroom and he did something to her there maybe the top got wet from either her being in the bathtub or shower and whatever he may have done to her caused the water to spill out on the floor and returning from disposing of her he saw it and then rolled it up and hid it i the shed but that leaves the reason why the bed was wet up in the air , maybe she took a bath and walked back through to her room with only a towel and went to put on her pajamas and that's when he stuck and if her hair and parts of the body are still wet and hair can drip a lot of water then that's how the bed got wet , maybe he did something to her there and the pajama top was under her and got wet aswell as the bed did and again after returning the same night she was last seen after disposing of her maybe he went to take off the bed sheets and remove other stuff to look like nothing sinister took place and she maybe just up and left saw the pajama top and rolls it up and while he is out putting it in the shed so kids done see one of them wakes up checks both parents rooms finds neither but see the wet bed of S and goes down stairs to watch tv like the witness statement says .

sorry just lots of thoughts hope it all makes sense and hope i don't upset anyone .

 

[Legally Bland]

Final update from this morning


15:05
'There were two ways to walk'

Another witness to take the stand was a young man who Lacomba, a taxi driver, often took to college in his red taxi.

The 18-year-old told the court he arrived at Bazes Shaw five minutes late for his lift on October 10 at 8.20am.

He was questioned by Alison Morgan for the prosecution.

Ms Morgan said: “When you got there at 20 past 8, did you see Sarah Wellgreen’s vehicle.”

The teenager answered: “I’m not really sure. I didn’t see the taxi.”

After a flurry of questions, the court heard the teenager had gone to the door of 22 Bazes Shaw and knocked around three times.

The witness explained a couple of minutes later, Lacomba’s mum Marilyn appeared in an upstairs window and said Lacomba wasn’t there.

The witness said he went home and received a lift from his mother.

The following day the witness said he went back to the house to receive a lift as normal, arriving at 8.15am.

He said Lacomba’s taxi was there, he can’t remember who answered the door but did he receive a lift that morning.

The witness told the court that during the journey: “The only unusual thing was Ben could no longer take me to college. He said he was losing money by giving me a lift.

“He told me I couldn’t come to his house anymore because he couldn’t give me any more lifts because Sarah wasn’t helping financially.”



Defence barrister Rebecca Trowler asked the witness whether he remembers Lacomba explaining he was losing jobs by giving him a lift.

The witness is uncertain but confirms he didn’t get another lift with Lacomba.


Ms Trowler said: “Generally, in September last year and beginning of October, it’s right isn’t it that Mr Lacomba’s car was sometimes in the car park to the side of the house and sometimes in the car park just a little bit further on from the house?”


The witness replied: “Yes.”
Ms Trowler pointed to a map in the witnesses pack, pointing out where car park 1 and the further-afield car park 2 are located.

She asked: “When you were going to the taxi in car park 2, which way would you walk?”



The witness answered: “We would go past 23 or either go…”



Ms Trowler interjected: “So there are two ways? Past 23 and the other along path going between 23 and 26.”



The witness replied: “Yes




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

You can see 26 here:

Map Search

Yellow lines are the 2 routes to car park 2:



Google Maps

 

[Noseyjosie]

Did you see it say in the 'shed'? This is all I saw regarding the wet/damp pyjama top:

15:46

Lacomba arrested and charged

On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers. “Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?”

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf.

Alison Morgan said: “We suggest to you it was not there when searches were conducted on an earlier date. That top was wet to the touch to the point that the officers noticed it.”

Police were pictured searching Sarah Wellgreen's home after forcing entry (Image: Jim Bennett)
‘Nothing to suggest Sarah is alive’

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

Hi Deu, yes the version I saw definitely said "on a shelf in the shed".......

Lacomba arrested and charged
On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers.

“Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?” questions Alison Morgan.

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf in the shed.

Alison Morgan said: “We suggest to you it was not there when searches were conducted on an earlier date. That top was wet to the touch to the point that the officers noticed it.”

 

[deugirtni]

i think the confusion is because of a lot of the technical words they use and the ways its being described in court which is leading the report to word it how they are , but what it actually means is that the person that texted S saying good night sweetie has confirmed a back and forth texting chat between them and S and the good night sweetie was the last message that person sent in response to a good night from S to end the conversation that evening , and there is no trace after that of S actively talking , texting or chatting with anyone else or on social media as after that point she no longer replied to anyone or has used her social media accounts or dating apps at all since that night and because they could confirm with the person S was texting how long before the good night text they sent S did they last hear back from her by text is how they have confirmed the last know moment she did something that shows she was alive and well .

i could be wrong but that's how it seems to me .

Yes, I'm sure they meant something like that, however, murderers *have* been known to take their victim's cellphone and do reply texts on behalf of the victim, to make it appear the victim was still alive at a certain point. So to me, that can't really be taken as 'proof of life', and especially since it was a 'received' text and not even one that was 'sent' from her own phone. jmo.

 

[deugirtni]

i think the top isn't as big a puzzle as we might think it is , if for example(and this is just speculation on what my mind is think and all MOO) she was in the bathroom and he did something to her there maybe the top got wet from either her being in the bathtub or shower and whatever he may have done to her caused the water to spill out on the floor and returning from disposing of her he saw it and then rolled it up and hid it i the shed but that leaves the reason why the bed was wet up in the air , maybe she took a bath and walked back through to her room with only a towel and went to put on her pajamas and that's when he stuck and if her hair and parts of the body are still wet and hair can drip a lot of water then that's how the bed got wet , maybe he did something to her there and the pajama top was under her and got wet aswell as the bed did and again after returning the same night she was last seen after disposing of her maybe he went to take off the bed sheets and remove other stuff to look like nothing sinister took place and she maybe just up and left saw the pajama top and rolls it up and while he is out putting it in the shed so kids done see one of them wakes up checks both parents rooms finds neither but see the wet bed of S and goes down stairs to watch tv like the witness statement says .

sorry just lots of thoughts hope it all makes sense and hope i don't upset anyone .

That is an excellent theory imo. IIRC she had just gotten home from her workday at the time when NJ was talking to her on the phone.. and I believe she said she was going to bed. Would make sense if she then went and had a shower or bath... then B accosted her while in the tub, or when she entered her bedroom afterward. He may have drowned her in the bath (thrashing, noise, not likely?), or strangled her, hiding behind her door, surprising her as soon as she went into her bedroom. Then he puts her on the bed so he can wrap her up. Maybe the PJ top was on the bath floor and he hadn't noticed it right away? Or she already had it on when she walked to her bdroom and like you say, it got wet from the towel or her hair or something?
But I think it was days later that this PJ top was discoverd in the shed by LE, why would it STILL be wet/damp? And why hide it? Even if the kids had seen her wearing it that evening before they went to bed, he easily could've explained it away by saying she must've gotten dressd and then picked up by one of her zillion suitors? (joke). I wonder if police took it for examination once they DID find it in the shed, because I believe it is sometimes still possible to get DNA evidence even after laundering in some cases?

 

[deugirtni]

Hi Deu, yes the version I saw definitely said "on a shelf in the shed".......

Lacomba arrested and charged
On Tuesday October 16, director of All Night Taxis Nicholas Morris said Lacomba “had a panicky look on his face” when they spoke.

He then attends Dartford County Court at around 10am to sort out custody papers.

“Are these the actions of someone who is concerned about the mother of his three children?” questions Alison Morgan.

One thing that is not seized, the prosecution believe because it was not there, is a grey and pink woman’s pyjama top in adult size large which reads “Happy bear” with a polar bear on it, rolled up on a shelf in the shed.

Alison Morgan said: “We suggest to you it was not there when searches were conducted on an earlier date. That top was wet to the touch to the point that the officers noticed it.”

Yes I see it does say that online now, thank you.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

That is an excellent theory imo. IIRC she had just gotten home from her workday at the time when NJ was talking to her on the phone.. and I believe she said she was going to bed. Would make sense if she then went and had a shower or bath... then B accosted her while in the tub, or when she entered her bedroom afterward. He may have drowned her in the bath (thrashing, noise, not likely?), or strangled her, hiding behind her door, surprising her as soon as she went into her bedroom. Then he puts her on the bed so he can wrap her up. Maybe the PJ top was on the bath floor and he hadn't noticed it right away? Or she already had it on when she walked to her bdroom and like you say, it got wet from the towel or her hair or something?
But I think it was days later that this PJ top was discoverd in the shed by LE, why would it STILL be wet/damp? And why hide it? Even if the kids had seen her wearing it that evening before they went to bed, he easily could've explained it away by saying she must've gotten dressd and then picked up by one of her zillion suitors? (joke). I wonder if police took it for examination once they DID find it in the shed, because I believe it is sometimes still possible to get DNA evidence even after laundering in some cases?

Could the top be wet from recent washing? Or wet in the shed damp environment? Could she have been wearing it when he dragged/buried her? ( shovel also in shed?) But why bring it back? Not a trophy kind of case is it.

What I dont get is if it has anything at all to do with the events at any point, ( as we must expect it does or why mention it in court?) then why on Earth has he not disposed of it?

Surely he must know theyd look in the shed at some point?!

If he's managed to take a body from the house and dispose of it without trace, why has he not done the same with a duvet, pillowcases and pyjama top?

 

[deugirtni]

You can see 26 here:

Map Search

Yellow lines are the 2 routes to car park 2:

View attachment 208350

Google Maps

I'm more confused than ever about the parking.

 

[deugirtni]

Could the top be wet from recent washing? Or wet in the shed damp environment? Could she have been wearing it when he dragged/buried her? ( shovel also in shed?) But why bring it back? Not a trophy kind of case is it.

What I dont get is if it has anything at all to do with the events at any point, ( as we must expect it does or why mention it in court?) then why on Earth has he not disposed of it?

Surely he must know theyd look in the shed at some point?!

If he's managed to take a body from the house and dispose of it without trace, why has he not done the same with a duvet, pillowcases and pyjama top?

Yes I was wondering if possible to have washed it or bcome wet/damp some other way, and then if put on the shelf in the shed, would the weather perhaps have prevented it from drying fully? But the confusing part is.. where was it when they searched the shed the first time, or did they just simply not notice it. That is possible too. The prosecutor is only guessing that it wasn't there previously. We have all heard of cops not noticing stuff before.

 

[Alyce]

That is an excellent theory imo. IIRC she had just gotten home from her workday at the time when NJ was talking to her on the phone.. and I believe she said she was going to bed. Would make sense if she then went and had a shower or bath... then B accosted her while in the tub, or when she entered her bedroom afterward. He may have drowned her in the bath (thrashing, noise, not likely?), or strangled her, hiding behind her door, surprising her as soon as she went into her bedroom. Then he puts her on the bed so he can wrap her up. Maybe the PJ top was on the bath floor and he hadn't noticed it right away? Or she already had it on when she walked to her bdroom and like you say, it got wet from the towel or her hair or something?
But I think it was days later that this PJ top was discoverd in the shed by LE, why would it STILL be wet/damp? And why hide it? Even if the kids had seen her wearing it that evening before they went to bed, he easily could've explained it away by saying she must've gotten dressd and then picked up by one of her zillion suitors? (joke). I wonder if police took it for examination once they DID find it in the shed, because I believe it is sometimes still possible to get DNA evidence even after laundering in some cases?

SW got home at 7.45pm ( BLs first statement ). She was talking to NJ at 9.20 ish for about 15 minutes and after that she exchanged the texts with Mr Eleini around 10pm. So any bath or shower attack would have to have taken place after this time. Taking a huge chance because the childrens bedrooms are next to and opposite the bathroom. Plus, as he did not leave until after 2am, that means he would have had to keep the body somewhere in the house for 4 hours and risk any of the children getting up to look for mum in the night.
I think whatever happened was later, in SWs bedroom, possibly with a locked or blocked door, to stop any of the children entering.

 

[deugirtni]

SW got home at 7.45pm ( BLs first statement ). She was talking to NJ at 9.20 ish for about 15 minutes and after that she exchanged the texts with Mr Eleini around 10pm. So any bath or shower attack would have to have taken place after this time. Taking a huge chance because the childrens bedrooms are next to and opposite the bathroom. Plus, as he did not leave until after 2am, that means he would have had to keep the body somewhere in the house for 4 hours and risk any of the children getting up to look for mum in the night.
I think whatever happened was later, in SWs bedroom, possibly with a locked or blocked door, to stop any of the children entering.

If that is the case, then that speaks to premeditation.. wait for her to be sound asleep.. go in and quietly smother her (hey, the pillow!)