Still Missing UK - Bernadette Walker, 17, left parent's car, Peterborough, 21 July 2020 *Arrests* #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gooner666 said:
Self preservation, she has pleaded guilty to her offences on the indictment so doesn’t need to give evidence. Even if she pleaded not guilty you don’t have to give evidence, that decision is always down to you and your defence team and not the prosecution.

In terms of self preservation what if she went into the box and broke down and said we did do it or she is buried there and then if that happened the judge will direct the prosecution to add further charges and amend the indictment. She is basically not giving evidence incase she incriminates herself into anything - similar to pleading the fifth in America
Click to expand...
She has pleaded not guilty to two of the charges, and guilty to two.

Just to be pedantic ;)
 
MIdge28 said:
Just got home - will write out the report soon - the Telegraph is pretty accurate though. Just wanted you to know SaW is NOT giving evidence!
Click to expand...

I think this is the lawyer advising this. She’s pleaded guilty to two accounts, the other two accounts relate to knowing she was dead. The evidence to this is flimsy, so why would she risk a life sentence for, what sadly, could be a suspended sentence or 3 years or less
 
Gooner666 said:
Self preservation, she has pleaded guilty to her offences on the indictment so doesn’t need to give evidence. Even if she pleaded not guilty you don’t have to give evidence, that decision is always down to you and your defence team and not the prosecution.

In terms of self preservation what if she went into the box and broke down and said we did do it or she is buried there and then if that happened the judge will direct the prosecution to add further charges and amend the indictment. She is basically not giving evidence incase she incriminates herself into anything - similar to pleading the fifth in America
Click to expand...
She only plead guilty to 2 of the 4 charges though?
 
Mercsw said:
I think this is the lawyer advising this. She’s pleaded guilty to two accounts, the other two accounts relate to knowing she was dead. The evidence to this is flimsy, so why would she risk a life sentence for, what sadly, could be a suspended sentence or 3 years or less
Click to expand...
If this evidence is flimsy then I fear evidence of Murder is flimsy too.
 
Unless something we missed on day 1 of ScW giving evidence, or prosecution opening or closing to come that really sticks I can't see a guilty of murder charge. The only other no body case I can think of is Nicola Payne trial from 2015, even with a fibre linked to accused car they wasn't a guilty charg. Poor BW I hope justice comes ,☹️
 
Jessv said:
Unless something we missed on day 1 of ScW giving evidence, or prosecution opening or closing to come that really sticks I can't see a guilty of murder charge. The only other no body case I can think of is Nicola Payne trial from 2015, even with a fibre linked to accused car they wasn't a guilty charg. Poor BW I hope justice comes ,☹️
Click to expand...
Sarah Wellgreen was a no-body murder trial. She still hasn't been found.

Joy Morgan too, and her body was found 3 months after the conviction of her murderer.
 
Last edited:
Ok glass of wine poured and dinner in the oven! Apologies if I repeat things you’ve read in the press. ScW appeared at 10.15 shaking and nervous. The prosecution began by asking him about the 3am call to the police on the Tuesday after Bea disappeared. He could not remember if he and SaW had discussed calling the police before or why they decided to call the police then. ScW then asked to stand down saying he didn’t want to go through what he’d gone through last week - referring to his breakdown in court. The judge asked him repeatedly if he was sure and explained how this might seem to the jury. He was then allowed a 30 minute break for him and his defence team to discuss whether he could continue. This stretched to 45 minutes before ScW reappeared in court.
The prosecution then went through the 3am phone call line by line. The aim seemed to be that if what he now alleges happened on 18th, why didn’t he at that point tell the police SaW was lying and give the police as much detail as he could. When questioned why it was claimed there had been a row rather than stating it was an allegation of SA, ScW replied I don’t want to talk about sexual abuse because I don’t want to see it all over the news. He repeated that a couple of times throughout the day. When asked if SaW’s version of events in the 3am call was to create a cover for ScW, he said he only allowed it to happen because SaW was in control.
He denied laying a false trail to Cowbit to imply Bea was at her friend’s house. He said the baby had colic so they had gone for a drive to settle her.
On the poster and during the 3am call they state that Bea was wearing a hoodie. This was later found in the laundry basket.ScW said he always did the laundry and SaW had insisted he should not wash the hoodie. However he was keen to point out that he did wash all the girls’ underwear because it was beginning to smell.
When SaW told the police Bea had her phone he knew this was a lie and knew it would make her more vulnerable. He could not recall Bea’s last words and when asked if this had haunted him he said he couldn’t recall.
They told the police Bea had money and had used it to top up her phone in Westwood. He claimed she had stolen the XBox and sold it.
SaW told the police Bea had contacted her nan and asked to stay. ScW admitted he knew this was a lie.
He also stated that SaW had been seeing C O’C for two years.
The afternoon focussed on ScW’s varying accounts of what happened on 18th. The prosecution went through the initial witness interview and showed video footage of ScW being very vague about places and times. The prosecution repeated that if what he had described in detail to the court was true, why hadn’t he told the PCs who inter him. He claimed they didn’t want SS involved. when asked why he hadn’t run after Bea he said he doesn’t tend to run. He told the prosecution that she was going to mention his back - he said it was an invisible disability just like a mental illness. He said in his witness statement that as Bea walked away in Skaters Way he started to smoke. As he was smoking he could not see which way she went. The prosecution reminded him that under oath in court he had described exactly which way he went.
There was a massive focus on deliberately misleading the police. In the same interview ScW had claimed he didn’t know which roundabout he’d turned off on yet weeks later he could describe it in detail. The prosecution suggested he’d had time to look at a map.
They then moved on to the no comment interview going through each question and stating that in court he now had answers for all of them so why did he answer no comment? Surely as a loving concerned parent he would want to help the police find Bea by giving as much detail as possible. He replied each time saying he was following his legal advice.
The excuse that his phone was switched off when he and SaW drove out in the night was suggested to him originally by the interviewing officers. He had relied no comment. The prosecution queried why he’d done that if his reason was so innocent.
The prosecution suggested that he said no comment to gain time to find out what the police evidence was then create a story to fit.
They returned to the back problem and showed TikTok videos of ScW on the bed and on the roof of the car. It was also stated that he could handle the weight of a motorbike. He said he did the Tiltoks because SaW was getting very famous and he wanted to bind with her.
The prosecution suggested ScW was more than capable of strangling or suffocating Bea. She suggested that after picking Bea up from her grandparents he drove to McDonalds up the A15. He then drove down the A15 and into the countryside where he killed her. He said that they were looking at horses then he decided to take her back to the grandparents which is why he ended up in Skaters Way.
The defence had nothing further to question ScW on. SaW’s defence stated they had advised her that not giving evidence could influence the jury in a negative way.
The judge has other commitments tomorrow morning, Friday will be the start of the closing speeches and will continue on Monday. On Tuesday the judge will sum up.
I hope that makes sense - if not please ask!
 
Mercsw said:
I think this is the lawyer advising this. She’s pleaded guilty to two accounts, the other two accounts relate to knowing she was dead. The evidence to this is flimsy, so why would she risk a life sentence for, what sadly, could be a suspended sentence or 3 years or less
Click to expand...
There is no way she would get a suspended sentence for this as her charges of peverting the course of justice relate to murder, nor would she get a life sentence I don’t recall a person ever getting the maximum of life for this.
 
Jessv said:
Unless something we missed on day 1 of ScW giving evidence, or prosecution opening or closing to come that really sticks I can't see a guilty of murder charge. The only other no body case I can think of is Nicola Payne trial from 2015, even with a fibre linked to accused car they wasn't a guilty charg. Poor BW I hope justice comes ,☹️
Click to expand...


Just from memory ( there are plenty of others )

Peter Falconio
Sarah Wellgreen
Helen McCourt
Linda Razzell
Margaret Fleming
April Jones
 
Gooner666 said:
There is no way she would get a suspended sentence for this as her charges of peverting the course of justice relate to murder, nor would she get a life sentence I don’t recall a person ever getting the maximum of life for this.
Click to expand...

four accounts of perverting the course of justice and covering a murder would be a life sentence. If she can convince them she was afraid, threatened, being pressured and believed scw that she had run away (as a mother of 9) they may give a suspended sentence as she’s been in jail for a year already.

I think that’s the plan
 
MIdge28 said:
Ok glass of wine poured and dinner in the oven! Apologies if I repeat things you’ve read in the press. ScW appeared at 10.15 shaking and nervous. The prosecution began by asking him about the 3am call to the police on the Tuesday after Bea disappeared. He could not remember if he and SaW had discussed calling the police before or why they decided to call the police then. ScW then asked to stand down saying he didn’t want to go through what he’d gone through last week - referring to his breakdown in court. The judge asked him repeatedly if he was sure and explained how this might seem to the jury. He was then allowed a 30 minute break for him and his defence team to discuss whether he could continue. This stretched to 45 minutes before ScW reappeared in court.
The prosecution then went through the 3am phone call line by line. The aim seemed to be that if what he now alleges happened on 18th, why didn’t he at that point tell the police SaW was lying and give the police as much detail as he could. When questioned why it was claimed there had been a row rather than stating it was an allegation of SA, ScW replied I don’t want to talk about sexual abuse because I don’t want to see it all over the news. He repeated that a couple of times throughout the day. When asked if SaW’s version of events in the 3am call was to create a cover for ScW, he said he only allowed it to happen because SaW was in control.
He denied laying a false trail to Cowbit to imply Bea was at her friend’s house. He said the baby had colic so they had gone for a drive to settle her.
On the poster and during the 3am call they state that Bea was wearing a hoodie. This was later found in the laundry basket.ScW said he always did the laundry and SaW had insisted he should not wash the hoodie. However he was keen to point out that he did wash all the girls’ underwear because it was beginning to smell.
When SaW told the police Bea had her phone he knew this was a lie and knew it would make her more vulnerable. He could not recall Bea’s last words and when asked if this had haunted him he said he couldn’t recall.
They told the police Bea had money and had used it to top up her phone in Westwood. He claimed she had stolen the XBox and sold it.
SaW told the police Bea had contacted her nan and asked to stay. ScW admitted he knew this was a lie.
He also stated that SaW had been seeing C O’C for two years.
The afternoon focussed on ScW’s varying accounts of what happened on 18th. The prosecution went through the initial witness interview and showed video footage of ScW being very vague about places and times. The prosecution repeated that if what he had described in detail to the court was true, why hadn’t he told the PCs who inter him. He claimed they didn’t want SS involved. when asked why he hadn’t run after Bea he said he doesn’t tend to run. He told the prosecution that she was going to mention his back - he said it was an invisible disability just like a mental illness. He said in his witness statement that as Bea walked away in Skaters Way he started to smoke. As he was smoking he could not see which way she went. The prosecution reminded him that under oath in court he had described exactly which way he went.
There was a massive focus on deliberately misleading the police. In the same interview ScW had claimed he didn’t know which roundabout he’d turned off on yet weeks later he could describe it in detail. The prosecution suggested he’d had time to look at a map.
They then moved on to the no comment interview going through each question and stating that in court he now had answers for all of them so why did he answer no comment? Surely as a loving concerned parent he would want to help the police find Bea by giving as much detail as possible. He replied each time saying he was following his legal advice.
The excuse that his phone was switched off when he and SaW drove out in the night was suggested to him originally by the interviewing officers. He had relied no comment. The prosecution queried why he’d done that if his reason was so innocent.
The prosecution suggested that he said no comment to gain time to find out what the police evidence was then create a story to fit.
They returned to the back problem and showed TikTok videos of ScW on the bed and on the roof of the car. It was also stated that he could handle the weight of a motorbike. He said he did the Tiltoks because SaW was getting very famous and he wanted to bind with her.
The prosecution suggested ScW was more than capable of strangling or suffocating Bea. She suggested that after picking Bea up from her grandparents he drove to McDonalds up the A15. He then drove down the A15 and into the countryside where he killed her. He said that they were looking at horses then he decided to take her back to the grandparents which is why he ended up in Skaters Way.
The defence had nothing further to question ScW on. SaW’s defence stated they had advised her that not giving evidence could influence the jury in a negative way.
The judge has other commitments tomorrow morning, Friday will be the start of the closing speeches and will continue on Monday. On Tuesday the judge will sum up.
I hope that makes sense - if not please ask!
Click to expand...

wow! This guy is either the worse liar or the most unlucky person ever. The horses is a weird touch. It is a detail that has been added needlessly and may be quite telling. Off the top of my head I can only think of the stables at peakirk. It stood out as something he’s clinging to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 80 more.
Total: 3,801 (members: 81, guests: 3,720)

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
3,720
Total visitors
3,801
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,288
Messages
17,966,724
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top