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

[deugirtni]

BBM

+1 Lunch

Not wanting to speak for others, but if I had to attend court with a start time of 12 noon, I'd make sure I ate lunch before I went. Surely they wouldn't start at noon to then only be excused for lunch a short time later?

 

[deugirtni]

Because the message logs showed imessages when the other phones were android.

I only remember seeing one reference made to imessage.. are you able to post where you're getting that info?

 

[deugirtni]

16:06
RSBM
....
She calls the claim that he dumped phones to hide the location of Sarah’s buried body as “unjustifiable” as a mobile phone’s location history can be shown by the billing data through tracing telephone masts.

“If there was evidence that that phone moved away from 22 Bazes shaw that night, you can bet you would have been presented with it.”

This is a good point. There has been nothing in evidence that I have seen where police or prosecution have asked for expert testimony and/or cellphone-provider records. The prosecution states that B's phone was 'active' during different times during that night, but that the evidence doesn't really mean anything. Surely they would have also received cellphone tower downloads to see what phones were accessing certain cell-towers that night? If S's iphone4 was missing, did they find any indication of its presence or usage from provider/cell-towers? I hate the reporting in this case. I mean, I'm grateful for what KentLive gave us as compared with nothing else, but too bad it couldn't have been more thorough, detailed, and clear. jmo.

 

[deugirtni]

I think it's been stated that Sarah and Neil communicated via i-message - this can ONLY happen between 2 iPhones (or apple devices possibly?) SO ... IF Ben is talking about messages that he'd seen from Neil or others using i-messsge then he MUST have had Sarah's iphone to see the messages and then got rid of that phone too ...

Yes, agreed, 'IF'.. but we don't seem to know that information?
And if it was true that those messages Ben was reciting repeatedly to police over the first few times he met with them, and yet S's two available phones were not showing those same messages, surely that would have been a significant highlight for the prosecution to question him on, and surely the defence lawyer wouldn't be suggesting the prosecution was trying to make the messages significant when they weren't?

 

[Alyce]

Do your jurors get sequestered?

Not usually.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

And wouldn't a taxi have GPS tracking anyway?

Im sure the taxi office owner/his boss did speak about that. He said, that the GPS was linked to the taxi phone/computer. So when he logged in or turned it on to start a shift it would be ON but once his shift was over and the phone/computer off the GPS would no longer be active.

 

[Delisa]

Was part of BL defense that when he was on bail his mum was very active doing guttering etc?

Because I saw an article and I'm sure his dad said ML had been bed ridden after BL arrest because of the upset of it all.

I'll look for it now

 

[Delisa]

https://en.mogaznews.com/World-News...-insists-his-son-has-nothing-to-do-with-.html

 

[Alyce]

12:12
Court set to resume
We heard the closing statement from both the prosecution and defence during yesterday’s proceedings.

The hearing resumes today (Tuesday, October 22) and Judge Christopher Kinch is expected to sum up the case.

A slight delay means that the summing up will get under way at around 12.20pm.

Stay with us throughout the day for the latest from the courtroom.


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

 

[Alyce]

12:43
Judge explains to jurors what they must decide
Judge Christopher Kinch QC explains that read evidence and agreed facts are not in dispute, but jury members must draw their own sensible conclusions on how honest and reliable evidence given by witnesses is. He then gives jurors legal directions.

It’s heard that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove anything. Mr Kinch says:

If you’re not sure she’s dead, then there has been no murder and that’s the end of the case. Ben Lacomba must be found not guilty.”

The prosecution allege that this is a “planned and deliberate” murder. If jurors are unsure that she died at the hands of Lacomba, they must find him not guilty.

Judge Kinch describes it as a “circumstantial case which relies on circumstantial evidence”. In other words, the prosecution claim “the variety of fact that proves the case can’t be explained as coincidence”.

 

[Alyce]

12:47

Is Sarah Wellgreen dead? The categories of evidence

Jurors must contemplate two questions when deliberating.

Question 1: “Are we sure that Sarah Jane Wellgreen is dead?” If jurors believes so, then they must answer question 2.

Question 2: “Are we sure that Ben Lacomba intended to and did kill Sarah Jane Wellgreen?”

Jurors must answer yes to both questions to return a guilty verdict, otherwise must return a not guilty verdict. On whether or Sarah Wellgreen is dead, the categories of evidence are:

• She hasn’t been seen since October 9, 2018
• Disappeared without taking her car
• There have been no use of her phones
• There has been no use of no bank accounts in her name
• There has been “a widespread and entirely unsuccessful search for her”

Judge Kinch adds:

The defence do not challenge any of that evidence.

“They challenge whether it is sufficient to make you sure that she has died.”

 

[Alyce]

12:51

If Sarah Wellgreen is dead, did Ben Lacomba kill her intentionally?

If the jury decides that Sarah Wellgreen is no longer alive, they must consider whether Ben Lacomba killed her and if he did so intentionally.

The prosecution rely on the following evidence:

• The emergence of plans that Sarah had to buy Lacomba out of the property
• The purchase of a large shovel
• Switching off CCTV cameras
• Parking in car park 2 rather than car park 1
• The route of a particular vehicle tracked by CCTV during the night of October 9/10, 2018
• The flashing of reflective light from car park 2
• The extinguishing of light from the conservatory of 22 Bazes Shaw

Judge Kinch says:

The defence don’t challenge the facts but argue that in some cases the facts don’t bear the interpretation put on them by the prosecution and in some cases can be explained as coincidence.”

 

[chimpface]

I've got a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that he's going to get away with it.

 

[Alyce]

Hope the Judge is going to mention all the other evidence the Prosecution are relying on
such as :
BL lying about being home all night
BL obstructing the police by withholding evidence ( the phones)
BL destroying the phones which could have helped to find/locate SW
BL refusing to allow police to search the property

 

[Mrs Marple]

Due to the quality of reporting there is a chance they have heard things that we haven't. They have also been to the alleged crime scene and they have been able to hear BLs tone of voice and observe his reactions. A lay person can get a feel for someone's trustworthiness from these things that we haven't had access to.

 

[Alyce]

13:05

Judge reviews evidence

Judge Kinch reviews the evidence to the jurors that we have heard previously.

This spans from the background of when Lacomba first met Sarah Wellgreen, including her mental health history and plans for the future, to the events of October 9 and the following days.

Mr Kinch highlights the first question after reviewing the footage of her last sighting outside 22 Bazes Shaw on October 9:

Is Sarah dead?”



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

 

[Alyce]

13:06

Court breaks for lunch

The court has now broken for lunch and will resume once again at around 2.05pm.

Please rejoin us then for the latest from the courtroom.

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

 

[Mrs Marple]

Hope the Judge is going to mention all the other evidence the Prosecution are relying on
such as :
BL lying about being home all night
BL obstructing the police by withholding evidence ( the phones)
BL destroying the phones which could have helped to find/locate SW
BL refusing to allow police to search the property

Well they can't prove he wasn't at home all night. There are other vehicles in the area that could have been caught on that CCTV. Tje flashing light could have been someone else returning. Don't get me wrong, l think he did it, but this is very touch and go imho

 

[Alyce]

Well they can't prove he wasn't at home all night. There are other vehicles in the area that could have been caught on that CCTV. The flashing light could have been someone else returning. Don't get me wrong, l think he did it, but this is very touch and go imho

There is direct evidence from another occupant in the house that BL was out of the house, at least for some length of time that night. I think the other occupant is old enough to be taken seriously.
The police said ,when they did the reconstruction of the car journey from October 9/10 ,that they were the only car on the road for the whole of the outward and return journey. I would expect the original cctv would also show if there were any other cars on that route on October 9.
I agree the flashing light could have been someone else - but again, I would hope the police have checked the movements of everyone else who was parked in CP2 on that night. It's not a huge car park, wouldn't be too hard to get details.

 

[hitthenick]

For me, the prosecution case and evidence is rather weak when it’s broken down.

The one thing though is the kid saying he wasn’t in the house during the night.

The car realistically could have been any other Vauxhall Zafira on those CCTV footages, it definitely isn’t crystal clear and certain that it is his car. Nobody seems to have said his car definitely wasn’t parked up during the whole night either.

The shovel! Not confirmed when he actually bought it but it has had soil checks deemed to be similar to immediately local soil AND if he had been digging a grave with that it would look at lot more worn out that it did in the photo.

Chucking his phones is suspicious, confusing if he did have her iPhone in the house or not.

There is not a shred of evidence in that house that proves he killed her, there’s no incriminating dna either, there’s no proof she is dead or alive, there’s nothing that has come back from his car being forensically examined.

The flashing lights from a locked car is laughable because nobody can see the actual car and that could also be anybody.

I’m really not impressed with the prosecution case. They have built a jigsaw erratically and made certain pieces be in that jigsaw when they shouldn’t have been.
They have used debatable cctv which doesn’t identify the exact car by registration, I wonder why the cctv isn’t in colour, many people I know with cctv have colour systems, I do too so mine would pick up a cars colour.

The shovel has been proven to have soil matching immediate soil.

Sarah does appear to have a very colourful life. She has attempted suicide, has mental health history too so I have no idea why that has been ruled out completely. I get the impression she wasn’t as happy as the prosecution have made out, all these men, Neil James definitely wasn’t in an exclusive relationship with her.

I also just can’t see how he has killed her in the house and got her to his car over 50m away without a sound. She’d be a very heavy woman if she was dead, 13st is over 80kg!

The defence summing up I thought was done very well, that summing up came across from what I read as a lot more reasonable to believe than the other side.

My neck on the line and if I was a juror, he would be not guilty.

Prosecution have tied their own hands behind their backs.

I do think he is responsible though. For what I’m not sure yet.