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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did they search Julie Hogg's house with cadaver dogs?

These officers working cadaver dogs are standing just yards away from the gates next to the fields / bridge over Car Dyke.

0_THS-Police-relocate-search-for-missing-Bernadette-Walker-to-Peterborough-1903_original.jpg

Specialist dive teams search water-filled ditches in teen murder inquiry

I think vegetation would be dying back in October, and probably maintained year round if it is a field used for keeping horses.

For police to search the area I'm sure it was intelligence led, with the known cell site/GPS data of his 410 steps, and they wouldn't have done a half-hearted job, skirting around the woods. They would have been paying attention to areas that presented an opportunity to kill without being seen and then hide her body temporarily or permanently.

I think it's a good suggestion, a spot that ticks a lot of boxes, but if he killed her there I think we need to find explanations for the other facts to see where they fit in -

1. his phone was off for 1.5 hours before he phoned Sarah. why would he need 1.5 hours if he left her there? it's a long time for someone to get suspicious and notice an empty car parked up where it shouldn't be.

2. Sarah told police he told her his phone was dead and dropped into the footwell of the car. We need to ask what does the phone dropping into the footwell of the car have to do with anything? He can just pick it up again, but not if he's driving during the time the phone was off.

3. he admitted driving out to the Fens. (per @helenvic - "The jurors and ScW were shown onscreen maps of the route ScW was driving according to available phone data timings. He had to admit that this showed that he drove to the Fens. The prosecutor said, “Do you understand, Mr. Walker, that you have never said this before?”)

4. after the call to Sarah finished it took him 20 minutes to drive to McDonalds. Where was he in Gunthorpe when he made the call and what was he doing there? If he was driving from the beginning of the phone call it took him 29 minutes to get to McDonalds.

5. He returned to the lock-up for 10 minutes.

6. Around 11pm both parents went to the lock-up for 20 minutes.

7. 19th - at 2:47am Scott returned to the lock-up for 13 minutes, 172 steps.

8. 8 minutes after being at the junction of Fane Rd/Fulbridge Rd he'd parked and walked 8 steps. His phone didn't move for 2.5 hours. Why would he walk across the A15 with a spade in hand when he could just as easily have left his phone in the lock-up for safety and then driven to his destination, without looking suspiciously like he was out digging a hole at night? The phone is most likely being used as a decoy, the 8 steps was to put it somewhere, and he's driven away.

9. He returned to the lock-up for 23 minutes.

10. 20th - Both parents at the lock-up for 5 minutes before their trip to Cowbit leading to Glinton, followed by 1 hour 20 mins of unexplained activity - and it's most likely this night he's referring to driving out on the A47 with both their phones disconnected. Why did Sarah feign being asleep if there was nothing incriminating done in that time?
I'll see if I can duck a few of your coconuts:

I could have used the more recent example of Tia Sharp hidden in the loft. The police are not infallible as we have seen in a number of instances in this case. I don't recall cadaver dogs being employed in the Julie Hogg case but that is an assumption as they would have found her at the start. Cadaver dogs are amazing but we don't know the exact survey area covered, or any othe factors that might affect the dog's accuracy. I assume they were used also used on ScW's car and the lockup.

1. You assume that she was killed at the beginning of the 1.5 hours and not near the end. It is not unusual for cars to be parked on either side of the road there.

2. Why would we accept that as truth and not just something he made up?

3. Why should we accept that he drove her off into 'the Fens'? There is no reported phone data beyond the Gunthorpe mast. He's also admitting to something that is not specific.

4. Perhaps he was just sitting in the car for a short while after phoning SaW. Perhaps he was contemplating what he had just done.

5. Yes, he went to the lock up for 10 mins. Perhaps that's when he put her bag there.

6. Yes. They both went to the lock up in the evening.

7. He did indeed. Perhaps he was digging out his spade.

8. Why would he want to drive to a very conspicuous location and have his car so visible for 2 and a half hours in the dead of night when he could leave it in an anonymous residential area and easily walk? 8 steps could be exiting the car and accessing the boot for the spade.

9. He went back to the lock up indeed. Perhaps he was cleaning his spade and changing clothes.

10. They did indeed return to the lock up at the beginning of their dead of night roadtrip.
 
So how would that fit in with the Prosecution asserting BW died in the Fens on Saturday? Where would her body have been kept to allow ScW to walk from the PH car park to finally dispose of her body? You might say he'd have had to bring her back in his car and drop her off at some known-to-him and convenient, and obviously very safe, location within no more than an hours walking distance, since carrying a body for that distance, if he had kept the body, in the car even in the dead of night, is more than a little bit risky.
It is both convenient for the prosecution and for ScW to assert that he drove into the Fens as it is so non-specific, the area so vast. He admitted this when they showed the map in court but we have not seen the map or know what was being mapped. I assumed it was data from the Gunthorpe mast that showed his direction of travel before he switched his phone off. BW may have been alive on that part of the trip but still killed near Gunthorpe. I don't believe BW was ever dead inside the car.
 
Last edited:
Bernadette Walker Murder Trial: Prosecution tell jury killing was ‘a planned, premeditated murder’

Cell site technology was able to say his phone had been travelling east when it was switched off.

Lisa Wilding QC, prosecuting, told the jury: “What happened, the prosecution say, is told to you by the evidence. By the evidence of the phone being switched off and by the cell site evidence. In combination, it can leave you in no doubt Scott Walker deliberately switched off his phone as he drove out to those fields out of Peterborough. It was a planned and premeditated killing.”

[...]

Ms Wilding also asked the jury to consider why Scott and Sarah Walker made so many trips to a lock-up garage between July 18 and July 20.

[...]

Ms Wilding told the jury: “There are a number of consequences of not giving evidence. You have not heard her side of the story - if she has a side of the story to tell.

“There can in reality be only one reason she chose not to give evidence - because in her opinion you would be less likely to acquit her if she did.
 
Bernadette Walker Murder Trial: Prosecution tell jury killing was ‘a planned, premeditated murder’

Cell site technology was able to say his phone had been travelling east when it was switched off.

Lisa Wilding QC, prosecuting, told the jury: “What happened, the prosecution say, is told to you by the evidence. By the evidence of the phone being switched off and by the cell site evidence. In combination, it can leave you in no doubt Scott Walker deliberately switched off his phone as he drove out to those fields out of Peterborough. It was a planned and premeditated killing.”

[...]

Ms Wilding also asked the jury to consider why Scott and Sarah Walker made so many trips to a lock-up garage between July 18 and July 20.

[...]

Ms Wilding told the jury: “There are a number of consequences of not giving evidence. You have not heard her side of the story - if she has a side of the story to tell.

“There can in reality be only one reason she chose not to give evidence - because in her opinion you would be less likely to acquit her if she did.
If only we knew the location when he was travelling east and switched his phone off. Could be any number of roads in the Gunthorpe mast catchment.
 
I am still waiting for what the SaW 'fan club' were endlessly proclaiming was the 'real truth' that 'would all come out at the trial'. All I have seen and heard is both parents lying, covering up and not appearing to be at all that distressed about the fate of their poor daughter.
Yes and SaW is not even giving evidence! I think she has a few fans here as well. MOO
 
If only we knew the location when he was travelling east and switched his phone off. Could be any number of roads in the Gunthorpe mast catchment.

Why did he even bring his phone when picking B up in the first place? He could have easily 'forgot' it and left it at home and that way there would have been no cell data to go on. He had a reason or perhaps two reasons, first so he could delibarately lay a false trail and second so SaW could contact him with further instructions?

I don't think he dumped the car and walked. I think he dumped the phone and then drove and realistically he could have travelled a fair distance in the timescale, however, I am starting to think he has not drove as far as I first thought JMO
 
Just because he was able to drive anywhere in an hours radius of the town doesn't mean that he did. Phone off and on in Gunthorpe Saturday lunchtime when BW disappears; phone doesn't move from Gunthorpe in the early hours of Sunday morning. Gunthorpe is standing out to me. He himself said that he stayed in the car reading and sleeping in the early hours of Sunday morning which I take as his explanation for why his car might be seen there for the whole time. It was dark and raining - if anyone actually saw anybody out walking in those conditions would they notice a spade under their raincoat? He doesn't need more than that.

Why did he refuel in Spalding and ping multiple locations in crowland and cowbit? He was moving often and following a sort of plan, but he didn’t leave that car much. If we can confirm where he went, we may stand a chance
 
“There can in reality be only one reason she chose not to give evidence - because in her opinion you would be less likely to acquit her if she did.”

bingo! She has been advised her story is stupid and to say nothing. He’s probably toast and she can claim he bullied her or she didn’t know. As pointed out a year on remand would mean 2 years off a sentence, she might only get 3 years for the two accounts she admitted, so she may even walk free if she doesn’t say anything stupid.

looks like prosecution want both
 
....
3. Why should we accept that he drove her off into 'the Fens'? There is no reported phone data beyond the Gunthorpe mast. He's also admitting to something that is not specific.

Just for clarity and to understand where you're coming from here...

are you saying that ScW did drive to the Fens but it is not provable that BW was in the car (which, agreed, it is not and if she was not in the car, would indeed go to show BW was likely killed at the start of the time slot - this raises obvious other questions as to where else she would be)....

... or are you saying saying the entire trip out to the Fens itself, regardless of occupants didn't happen (despite it being evidenced by the Prosection)?
 
“There can in reality be only one reason she chose not to give evidence - because in her opinion you would be less likely to acquit her if she did.”

bingo! She has been advised her story is stupid and to say nothing. He’s probably toast and she can claim he bullied her or she didn’t know. As pointed out a year on remand would mean 2 years off a sentence, she might only get 3 years for the two accounts she admitted, so she may even walk free if she doesn’t say anything stupid.

looks like prosecution want both





Where is this ........
one year on remand equates to 2 years served .............
rule coming from ?
Unless the law has changed I have always understood it to be each day on remand is equal to one day served.

If she had been bailed until the trial then each day of bail would equate to half a day off her sentence.
 
Just for clarity and to understand where you're coming from here...

are you saying that ScW did drive to the Fens but it is not provable that BW was in the car (which, agreed, it is not and if she was not in the car, would indeed go to show BW was likely killed at the start of the time slot - this raises obvious other questions as to where else she would be)....

... or are you saying saying the entire trip out to the Fens itself, regardless of occupants didn't happen (despite it being evidenced by the Prosection)?

this case is confusing due to unreliable witness who is making it up as he goes along.

In court he randomly announced he picked up b and drove to the fens that morning, where they looked at a horse, he then decided to bring her to McDonald’s and the grandparents…before going the wrong way for both and she jumped out and ran away. To which he went to McDonald’s anyway and told the police 3 days later!

however, this Saturday trip to the fens has only been reported by the accused and at the eleventh hour. We were told previously his random middle of the night trip to cowbit was never done in previous 18 months. So make of that what you will
 
Really?

I can't recall seeing anyone posting here who's been a 'Sarah fan'.
I would imagine it’s because my defence of a lady having multiple children with multiple fathers or somebody being on benefits shouldn’t be automatically stereotyped or judged.

When you say sidings what sidings are you referring to, I have a friend who works on the railway and I’ve asked him and he said around Peterborough there is a few sidings that can’t be accessed by the public.

By sidings I mean the areas next to railway lines, and am particularly thinking of maybe the areas where it's possible to cross over by car or on foot, or maybe the area below a railway bridge or similar. I suppose it depends also what areas of track have had maintenance over the last year, would like to think workers would spot anything unusual.

(I think my quoting of your post went slightly wrong Resident71, apologies I'm still getting used to how this site works)[/QUOTE]
No issues I knew what you meant. I’ve had spoken with him and regarding running lines he has said that it would be very difficult to cross onto them without somebody noticing, he did say Folly Bank in Peakirk is a possibility and did say further out towards Lincoln line there is lots of crossings but logistically he said it wouldn’t be feasible.

However the part about accessing where workers should be especially in Werrington (I don’t work on railway) but there was hundreds of people working on those new lines and the dive under. And I think we have to understand this man either had a plan in place or he’s just gone off instinct. Disturbing.
 
Where is this ........
one year on remand equates to 2 years served .............
rule coming from ?
Unless the law has changed I have always understood it to be each day on remand is equal to one day served.

If she had been bailed until the trial then each day of bail would equate to half a day off her sentence.

As I understand it, you are both “sort of” correct.

The sentence is the sentence, with no time off. However, the remand counts towards the time served.

And for many crimes, eligibility for release comes at the half way mark.

Therefore (for example) a three year sentence with a year having been spent in remand would mean eligibility for release in six months (hence the two for one concept).
 
Why did he even bring his phone when picking B up in the first place? He could have easily 'forgot' it and left it at home and that way there would have been no cell data to go on. He had a reason or perhaps two reasons, first so he could delibarately lay a false trail and second so SaW could contact him with further instructions?

I don't think he dumped the car and walked. I think he dumped the phone and then drove and realistically he could have travelled a fair distance in the timescale, however, I am starting to think he has not drove as far as I first thought JMO
It is puzzling. Like you I thought he didn't leave his phone at home because he wanted to use it to set up a false trail. If he left it hidden somewhere then SaW couldn't contact him on it anyway.

But, it begs the question why he wanted to leave a false trail, why let anyone know he wasn't tucked up in his bed?

I think but I don't know that a/ he didn't trust SaW not to hack into his phone while he was out, too much on there he "didn't want anyone to see" and b/ he wanted a false trail in case anyone outside the family reported Bee missing and police came knocking on the door while he was out.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
4,447
Total visitors
4,615

Forum statistics

Threads
592,464
Messages
17,969,318
Members
228,774
Latest member
truecrime-hazeleyes
Back
Top