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

[Alyce]

I'm thinking he wanted the cross examination of the accused some time to sink in for both himself and the jurors. (Maybe make himself some more detailed notes while he's at it, for when he makes his instructions to the jury?)

I agree, it's a good cut off point to end on for the day.

We don't know, yet, if the Defence is calling any other witnesses. Possiby not, as the defendant is usually the last one to give evidence.

 

[deugirtni]

I started yacking to SO about this case yesterday.. he had an answer for everything! The cameras showing his trip aren't that clear, the parking in lot#2 happened at other times too, his shoes may have gotten lost when his Momma started reorganizing while she was over at the house, no hard evidence, no body, he disposed of cellphones due to embarrassment, the occupant was mixed up in dates of checking both beds to see they were empty, the 'wet' could be just from a towel laying on the area for a time before she exited, the shovel - so what, everyone has an all-purpose shovel, blah blah. I guess he'd be one of the holdouts on the jury of 12.
I know that the jurors are to judge on the 'whole picture' in its entirety, and not just take one aspect to judge at a time. I think it's the entirety thing that's doing it for me. OTOH, I'm not really seeing a lot in his answers, even under duress, which jump out at me in a 'statement analysis' type of way.. he seems to be holding it together quite well, and keeps saying no, he didn't kill her, etc.
Shall we take a vote, or leave it until the jury has been dismissed for deliberations?

 

[deugirtni]

Who do we figure the defence will call upon in addition to the accused? Don't they usually leave the accused for the very end, IF they even put the accused on the stand? Could the defence's submissions be over already?

 

[Alyce]

Who do we figure the defence will call upon in addition to the accused? Don't they usually leave the accused for the very end, IF they even put the accused on the stand? Could the defence's submissions be over already?

I can't think who else they would call, other than ML - and they won't want to risk her under cross / ex

 

[Websleuther08]

I wonder who did the timing for an hour and a half. He does not look the fittest and 6 foot is a big *advertiser censored* hole if u r digging on your own. Dont get me wrong i know he had his mommys big spade but still?
I think more towards water tbh just like the phones.

Still laughing at the whole "i wanted to be seen" scenario" what a crock of ****
I think as said previously he is trying his luck and thinks he is clever and when hopefully found guilty he will claim she attacked him and it was an accident but cant remember wherehe buried her as he is a selfish terd and wont want them finding her to disprove him in anyway . Poor kids

I agree, it's a bit too Ian Huntley type of thing where he's making out to be the good guy and do the right thing. It's a classic guilt trait.

 

[deugirtni]

Something else I'm still confused about. Police seem to have *asked* BL for the cellphone(s). This was from... when? The 10th through the 14th?? Didn't it say that he disposed of the cellphones only an hour after police left his house, after they'd taken it and then BL had gotten it back? He mentioned I believe, that it had been 'voluntary' for him to give it to them in the first place, as part of his reasoning for wanting it back. My question is WHY police did not have a search warrant in hand by that time, 4 days later?? Surely they must've suspected him from the start - they seemed to show up to his house unannounced on a regular basis in the first days.. would it have been that difficult to have obtained a search warrant for his (and her) phone(s)??
Also, we heard nothing about them testing the duvet nor Sarah's mattress.. if the mattress was wet, what was it wet WITH, and why? And if wet with urine, which might indicate a sudden murder took place there, then why hasn't this been brought forward? Why wouldn't they have tested it, unless it was just a nothing-burger which they are now making out to be a something-burger??
Basically, why are we being told all this stuff to make us 'wonder', but which at least some of it could have easily enough been verified to have been a factor, or not?

 

[deugirtni]

I can't think who else they would call, other than ML - and they won't want to risk her under cross / ex

ML was already a prosecution witness, as we heard at least, that she was to appear the following day, during one of the day's reportings.. although we never did hear what she had to say. Can a witness be called as BOTH a prosecution AND a defence witness?? Wouldn't the defence have questioned her on whatever testimony/statements originated from her, during her time on the stand?

 

[deugirtni]

I can't think who else they would call, other than ML - and they won't want to risk her under cross / ex

I suppose if it was possible with results in their favor, the defence could call an 'expert witness' to say the reason why the vehicle caught on the cameras might NOT have been BL's vehicle?

 

[hitthenick]

For the people asking about his CCTV.

When it is switched on, the cameras at night will transmit infrared signals, when you watch the CCTV from the other house across the car park, that camera will pick up the infrared beams from bens cameras therefore illuminating that area around the side of his house.

When he switches off his cameras, what happens then is no infrared beam will be transmitted around his house at night, therefore the camera from No 23 wont have that area illuminated and that will then show that area in total darkness and won’t pick anything up from Bens house if he walked out and took Sarah’s body with him.

One can see on the CCTV footages the moment Bens cameras are turned off, from No23 that part of the car park at the side of Bens house goes into total darkness. It’s hard to spot but watch the CCTV,the night part of the car park 1 and you will see the side of his house go dark all of a sudden, you will also see what look like little spot lights where the cameras are on his house.

That’s why the cameras were turned off before he bolted from the house with her.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes, I think that's exactly what was happening. Live footage could be seen but it was not being stored. So, anyone who viewed and then reported to police would have no proof to back up their reporting.

As to why he turned if off. I was under the impression that he did not know the system was not recording. I know he said SW was not aware, but I thought he also did not know.

If BL also did not know the system was NOT recording, then why say 'Sarah was not aware', as opposed to 'WE were not aware', etc? And if the system was able to view on a screen in realtime, didn't it say they had taken that TV screen to put it in one of the children's bedrooms? So what screen is this being done on? It seems very unlikely to me that BL would NOT have been aware of the system not recording, as he seemed very 'into' what the various cameras around were able to see, exactly. (Hence asking the neighbour to see his footage a few times.)

 

[Delisa]

We have seen the shoes he went into the office with (poo flickers) but i was actually refering to the "brown" shoes that were missing for a few days.
Maybe thats the 11 mins she went in the house looking for them so she could take them (and maybe other things) and get them clean ready to reappear!

I haven't seen the silly shoes.

I think mummy is in on it her coming and going is a bit odd.

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

I don't think there were any cameras showing someone exiting out of the front door and getting into a vehicle... otherwise, wouldn't they have footage showing BL coming out of there with a body in tow?

I meant the cctv that picked up his cameras going on and off dont think i was clear

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

I haven't seen the silly shoes.

I think mummy is in on it her coming and going is a bit odd.[/QUOT9E]



Not the exact ones but u get it

 

[deugirtni]

For the people asking about his CCTV.

When it is switched on, the cameras at night will transmit infrared signals, when you watch the CCTV from the other house across the car park, that camera will pick up the infrared beams from bens cameras therefore illuminating that area around the side of his house.

When he switches off his cameras, what happens then is no infrared beam will be transmitted around his house at night, therefore the camera from No 23 wont have that area illuminated and that will then show that area in total darkness and won’t pick anything up from Bens house if he walked out and took Sarah’s body with him.

One can see on the CCTV footages the moment Bens cameras are turned off, from No23 that part of the car park at the side of Bens house goes into total darkness. It’s hard to spot but watch the CCTV,the night part of the car park 1 and you will see the side of his house go dark all of a sudden, you will also see what look like little spot lights where the cameras are on his house.

That’s why the cameras were turned off before he bolted from the house with her.

What you posted is kind of over my head, sorry to be so thick! Do you mean that if BL's cameras were ON, the lights would also come on to illuminate the area being covered by the cameras? How would one cameras signals affect another camera at another house? If the camera was OFF, but yet the 'flashes' of light were telling prosecutors that meant he was 'locking his vehicle'(?), why would it (the camera) still be doing that, even though turned off? I had been under the impression that the neighbour's camera could only catch the top of a head.. because of the fence height, so I'm not sure how the neighbour's camera being affected by BL's camera's rays, is an issue?

 

[mrazda71]

Do we know if the occupant of the house who gave video evidence was the older or younger child of Ben and Sarah?

 

[deugirtni]

Do we know if the occupant of the house who gave video evidence was the older or younger child of Ben and Sarah?

No, but it only makes sense that it was the older. imo.

 

[deugirtni]

I haven't seen the silly shoes.

I think mummy is in on it her coming and going is a bit odd.

Somewhere posted upthread a bit in the previous thread, there is a little videoclip I think, showing BL in the taxi office with his famous shoes.

 

[Alyce]

ML was already a prosecution witness, as we heard at least, that she was to appear the following day, during one of the day's reportings.. although we never did hear what she had to say. Can a witness be called as BOTH a prosecution AND a defence witness?? Wouldn't the defence have questioned her on whatever testimony/statements originated from her, during her time on the stand?

I don’t know whether she appeared or not, I remember she was supposed to but then we didn’t hear testimony, which made me think she was possibly going to be a defence witness.
She can’t be both.

 

[deugirtni]

I don’t know whether she appeared or not, I remember she was supposed to but then we didn’t hear testimony, which made me think she was possibly going to be a defence witness.
She can’t be both.

I will have to check back, but I thought something had been reported about something she'd said on the stand, although nothing had been mentioned on the KentLive feed thingy IIRC..

 

[Ironside]

No, but it only makes sense that it was the older. imo.

There was a statement posted here that was given to the police by this witness describing SW the morning before she vanished. It made me think the witness was a tween or a teen. They had a very good vocabulary iirc.