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

[MIdge28]

I would have thought the prosecution would have asked ScW where he stopped with BW to look at horses.

They did but guess what? He couldn’t remember!

 

[Alyce]

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

but she has chosen not to give evidence, so that removes her opportunity to convince the jury of anything.

 

[Alyce]

Thanks very much MIdge28 for the great report.

I found it quite amusing that Scott thought Sarah’s tiktoks were making her famous...I doubt anyone who has watched even 5 minutes of them would agree with his assessment.

 

[Gooner666]

but she has chosen not to give evidence, so that removes her opportunity to convince the jury of anything.

the jury are asked to arrive at a decision based on facts sometimes the less said the better, it’s for the prosecution to prove not for her to convince otherwise

 

[Bluebear15]

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 ,

The trials for the murders of Margaret Fleming, Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser were all no body trials. All the accused found guilty. There was also no forensic evidence provided for the Margaret Fleming trial.

 

[Sooty]

Thanks @MIdge28 - can I ask how his character comes across in court? Some of his answers come across as ‘I can’t be bothered’ but it has been mentioned previously that he comes across as calm and compliant. Just wondering what impression the jurors are actually left with.

 

[RusselSprout]

Thanks @Alyce for reminding me of the fairly recent Margaret Fleming bodyless murder conviction. I'm reminded of some similarities between the cases namely the accused sending comms pretending to be the victim to try and cover their tracks.

The jury will see through all their lies, GUILTY all day long.

And edited to add big thanks for the report @MIdge28

 

[jackal67]

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 ,

Sadly I agree.

 

[Tanzanite]

but she has chosen not to give evidence, so that removes her opportunity to convince the jury of anything.

Can the prosecuting counsel still question her, even if SaW declines to give evidence?

And huge thanks Midge28 for the report of today's events. Really appreciate your hard work - enjoy that wine!

 

[MIdge28]

Thanks @MIdge28 - can I ask how his character comes across in court? Some of his answers come across as ‘I can’t be bothered’ but it has been mentioned previously that he comes across as calm and compliant. Just wondering what impression the jurors are actually left with.

Today I felt he was mostly pretending to not understand anything. A few times he referred to himself as stupid. He really didn’t like the female prosecutor outwitting him and would mutter to himself. Last time I saw him being questioned by the defence he was very poor me whereas today he was a bit more argumentative.
Edited to say this was all after his ‘breakdown’ early on when he was shaking . I thought he made a remarkable recovery!

 

[mspuurfect]

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

The horses thing is probably pretty true (more leakage), may not be stables could just be a field with a couple of horses. They also mentioned McDonalds, I still think that was the excuse he used to perhaps take BW in that direction in the first place. Out of interest can anyone tell me whats behind these gates?

Google Maps

 

[Gooner666]

Can the prosecuting counsel still question her, even if SaW declines to give evidence?

And huge thanks Midge28 for the report of today's events. Really appreciate your hard work - enjoy that wine!

No, it’s the defendants decision whether they give evidence or not, normally advised by counsel. All they can do is re read out their interviews or statements of fact like here they are are on cctv at such and such time wearing this and that these were the same clothing witness #14 saw etc

 

[Alyce]

Can the prosecuting counsel still question her, even if SaW declines to give evidence?

And huge thanks Midge28 for the report of today's events. Really appreciate your hard work - enjoy that wine!

No, there is nothing they can do if she chooses not to go into the witness box...other than point out to the jury that she has declined to give evidence.

 

[Tanzanite]

No, it’s the defendants decision whether they give evidence or not, normally advised by counsel. All they can do is re read out their interviews or statements of fact like here they are are on cctv at such and such time wearing this and that these were the same clothing witness #14 saw etc

No, there is nothing they can do if she chooses not to go into the witness box...other than point out to the jury that she has declined to give evidence.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Beckxsy]

Also the amount of time they are on remand is then doubled and taken off their sentance. So if for example saw gets 3 years , she has spent so far 10 months on remand. So 20 months will be taken from her sentance. Also if sentanced to 3 years they only do half the sentance which would be 1.5 years. Therefore she could actually walk out of court for time spent.
Please forgive me if what I'm quoting is wrong.

 

[Beckxsy]

I know snippets of law due to a non law abiding ex partner.

 

[mspuurfect]

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.

He posted this on his HIH Property FB page, which if you look at the date he posted this he was apparantly already SA BW. He even commented how 'justice had been partly served'

Link - Facebook

 

[Mercsw]

Also the amount of time they are on remand is then doubled and taken off their sentance. So if for example saw gets 3 years , she has spent so far 10 months on remand. So 20 months will be taken from her sentance. Also if sentanced to 3 years they only do half the sentance which would be 1.5 years. Therefore she could actually walk out of court for time spent.
Please forgive me if what I'm quoting is wrong.

this is my understanding too, and they will factor in the children and whether it serves the purpose of locking her up for 3 months etc

 

[mrazda71]

Thanks very much MIdge28 for the great report.

I found it quite amusing that Scott thought Sarah’s tiktoks were making her famous...I doubt anyone who has watched even 5 minutes of them would agree with his assessment.

I'm very glad that she's been on remand since Tiktok decided to allow 3 minute long videos!

 

[Tanzanite]

I'm now clinging to the hope that prosecuting counsel (who seemed to be reasonably forensic, from what we have), will be able to deliver a fairly damning picture of their movements, drawn in enough detail for the jury to do the just thing.

If SaW was innocent and had nothing to hide, she would be up there begging to be heard, desperate to set the record straight, regardless of her barrister's advice. Mind you, if she was innocent and had nothing to hide, her barrister would probably have noticed by now and would be equally keen to see SaW in the witness box. I know I'm stating the obvious - I'm just throwing thoughts out in frustrated, impotent sadness for BW, I think.