UK UK - Sarah Wellgreen, 46, Kent, 9 Oct 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is difficult to find another person who could be responsible for SWs disappearance.
In order to do that, we have to accept that SW would get out of bed, after 10pm, and leave her house, without phone, keys, money or even a jacket / coat and, leaving her car behind, would then walk to meet this person.
Plus, if someone was picking her up, they would most likely wait in CP1 and SW would have been caught on the neighbour's cctv.

It also requires that the arrangement to meet this person had to have been made verbally at some time during that day, before she arrived home, as there is no record of a phone call or text with anyone other than NJ and Mr Eleini that evening.

I did have plenty of thoughts in different directions, pre trial, but having heard the evidence so far, I cannot see how any other person could be involved.
 
Snipped from Wise Owl's post above

The occupant of the house added that Lacomba told them: “You don’t have to worry about it because the police are finding Sarah.”

I wonder at what point BL said this to the occupant of the house. Did he say it on October 11, after he reported SW as missing, or did he say it when the occupant of the house was trying to find SW in the early hours of October 10 ?
 
don't know if anyone has replied to you yet but Ive been following this case since day 1 and im in the UK, NJ and S were living together for 6 months or longer and her twins and other child she had with BL were living there wit her she had changed their school and everything but it took a toll on the kids missing their dad and their previous school and friends so she put her kids first and moved back in with BL in the house the still co-owned together so the kids could go back to their original school and be around BL and she was trying too basically peacefully co-exist under same roof as BL to co-parent the kids and keep them less stressed by the split and custody stuff between her and BL , so NJ did live with her for a period of time and would be aware of her habits and of her texting habits aswell as how stressful life for her was with BL , S was trying to buy BL out of the home she co-owned with him , as for the other who texted her worried they may have been people she confided in about different things which her silence that day gave cause for concern and as for her mother well she may know more and have reason to worry but the public doesnt know what they know and what we do know is very little .

sorry for so much rambelling but i can see total cause for concern from all those involved ,NJ her Mom etc its natural given what she was dealign with and NJ hardly got to see her due to her work and the kids and not living close by him anymore so not hearing from her after a few hours would cause concern .
Thats my point though Deu?

If you live 24/7 with someone, or share daily routines, then it would be unusual to not hear or see someone.

If you only text daily but arent exclusive, or dont have knowledge of someones daily, hourly routines etc then itvseems odd to me that someone not that involved would worry about an 8hr gap in communication. SW could have had extra appmnts at work, have decided to go visit someone, go to seaside, or just be having a bit of me time or down time?

Therefore I think there mustve been some concern for her safety beforehand?


OH = Other Half. Hubby/wife/partner etc
anyone as replied to you on this
 
don't know if anyone has replied to you yet but Ive been following this case since day 1 and im in the UK, NJ and S were living together for 6 months or longer and her twins and other child she had with BL were living there wit her she had changed their school and everything but it took a toll on the kids missing their dad and their previous school and friends so she put her kids first and moved back in with BL in the house the still co-owned together so the kids could go back to their original school and be around BL and she was trying too basically peacefully co-exist under same roof as BL to co-parent the kids and keep them less stressed by the split and custody stuff between her and BL , so NJ did live with her for a period of time and would be aware of her habits and of her texting habits aswell as how stressful life for her was with BL , S was trying to buy BL out of the home she co-owned with him , as for the other who texted her worried they may have been people she confided in about different things which her silence that day gave cause for concern and as for her mother well she may know more and have reason to worry but the public doesnt know what they know and what we do know is very little .

sorry for so much rambling but i can see total cause for concern from all those involved ,NJ her Mom etc its natural given what she was dealing with and NJ hardly got to see her due to her work and the kids and not living close by him anymore so not hearing from her after a few hours would cause concern .
Thats my point though Deu?

If you live 24/7 with someone, or share daily routines, then it would be unusual to not hear or see someone.

If you only text daily but arent exclusive, or dont have knowledge of someones daily, hourly routines etc then itvseems odd to me that someone not that involved would worry about an 8hr gap in communication. SW could have had extra appmnts at work, have decided to go visit someone, go to seaside, or just be having a bit of me time or down time?

Therefore I think there mustve been some concern for her safety beforehand?


OH = Other Half. Hubby/wife/partner etc
 
KentLive 17,47

Occupant 'woke in the middle of the night and couldn't find Sarah'

An occupant of the house was interviewed by DC Lisa Roots and DC Deniz Aslan on October 18.

This video interview was played at Woolwich Crown Court today (October 8).
When asked where Sarah was, the person - who can’t be named for legal reasons - explained Ben told them Sarah was “lost” and “we don’t know where she is, nobody knows where she is”.

The witness woke up in the middle of the night and neither Miss Wellgreen or Lacomba were in their separate bedrooms.
They “checked in Sarah’s room and she wasn’t there and her bed was wet and she left her phone and her purse”.

The witness claimed the bed “was wet on the right hand side where the wardrobe is” on the “top bit of the bed”.
The occupant claimed the bed “hasn’t been wet before” in the interview.

When the person woke up, they claim Lacomba was not at the property and instead “at work taxi driving” but later “saw him come back home”.

The witness had gone downstairs to watch TV.
They claim Lacomba then “went back to bed”, as did the witness.

The occupant of the house added that Lacomba told them: “You don’t have to worry about it because the police are finding Sarah.”

So this contradicts BL's story that he was at home asleep that night.
This is very interesting. I think a lot may be left out of this. ie, what was it that awoke the occupant, did 'they' hear noises? I wonder at which point the occupant woke up, shortly after Ben left the home, or shortly before his arrival back home, or in between?
When the occupant says the 'bed was wet', on the 'top bit of the bed', I'm thinking he meant perhaps the 'covers' on top? Or the top portion of the mattress (but why would the child have lifted the covers/sheets to check which portion was wet?)? If he had instead meant the 'top' of the bed meaning the 'head' of the bed, wouldn't he have specified head or foot? So could very well have been somewhere in the middle portion. Is this why the duvet was found stuffed in the drawer?
It doesn't make sense that some 6 days later, the SAME pillowcase matching the duvet in the drawer would still be on the pillow on the bed whilst the duvet had been removed, IF BL's mother had replaced 'the bedding' with her own, as was stated by the accused.. the first thing one would change would be the pillowcase?? But yet that was the thing remaining?
I hope police took the duvet for forensic testing when they found it in the drawer? They may have found the substance which had made the bed wet? That would be terribly damning evidence if they found it contained urine.
---
13:14
Inside Sarah's room
Detective Constable Celia King, the family liaison officer who was implemented as the single point of contact for the family to support them, gives evidence in court.

Her involvement began on October 14 when she joined DC Joanna Godfrey on a visit to Bazes Shaw.
....
Used bed linin
Celia King was led to believe that Sarah Wellgreen’s bedroom was on occasion used by Marilyn Lacomba and she was staying there at the time of their visit.
....
A gold coloured duvet was discovered in a drawer which matched a pillowcase still on the bed, with another matching pillowcase in the wardrobe. This was Sarah’s bed linen and when his mother goes there, they swap the bed linen for her own.

DC King said: “The bottom sheet looked like it had been slept in, a used one. There was lots of stuff on top of the bed but it wasn’t a made bed.

“It (Sarah’s gold bed linen) was half folded into the drawer as if it had been stuffed in there. I took it out and to me it wasn’t clean.”
====
17:47
Occupant 'woke in the middle of the night and couldn't find Sarah'
An occupant of the house was interviewed by DC Lisa Roots and DC Deniz Aslan on October 18.
This video interview was played at Woolwich Crown Court today (October 8).
...
The witness woke up in the middle of the night and neither Miss Wellgreen or Lacomba were in their separate bedrooms.
They “checked in Sarah’s room and she wasn’t there and her bed was wet and she left her phone and her purse”.
The witness claimed the bed “was wet on the right hand side where the wardrobe is” on the “top bit of the bed”.
The occupant claimed the bed “hasn’t been wet before” in the interview.
 
Snipped from Deug's post above

It doesn't make sense that some 6 days later, the SAME pillowcase matching the duvet in the drawer would still be on the pillow on the bed whilst the duvet had been removed, IF BL's mother had replaced 'the bedding' with her own, as was stated by the accused.. the first thing one would change would be the pillowcase?? But yet that was the thing remaining?

I was thinking the same.

Assuming that there were normally 2 pillows on the bed, it is very odd not to remove both pillowcases and replace them with 2 of MLs own bedding ( which I guess was kept in the house for her if she stayed over frequently ).
 
Snipped from Deug's post above

It doesn't make sense that some 6 days later, the SAME pillowcase matching the duvet in the drawer would still be on the pillow on the bed whilst the duvet had been removed, IF BL's mother had replaced 'the bedding' with her own, as was stated by the accused.. the first thing one would change would be the pillowcase?? But yet that was the thing remaining?

I was thinking the same.

Assuming that there were normally 2 pillows on the bed, it is very odd not to remove both pillowcases and replace them with 2 of MLs own bedding ( which I guess was kept in the house for her if she stayed over frequently ).
Now that I think of it.. was there only ONE pillow on the bed? If so, where is pillow#2? Did it get discarded/buried, perhaps along with the victim? There were 2 of same pillowcases, one on the pillow on the bed, one (presumably clean) in the drawer.. Perhaps the one on the bed was the 'unused' pillow and that is why BL's mother didn't mind it being left on the bed she was sleeping in?? While the one that HAD been used last by S had been laundered and put away? Why tell people the mother brought/used her own bedding if S's pillowcase is still on the bed? So weird. No one is to say if there were ever or usually 2 pillows on the bed, however it seemed from looking at interior home photos from realty sites, that S liked pretty standard stuff, so I'm gussing she likely had 2 on the bed. jmo.
 
To me, it is weird to even mention that the bottom sheet was 'used'? Considering it was now FOUR and a half days later when this was noticed, and BL's mother was said to have been staying there... ? Was there a point to this?

DC King said: “The bottom sheet looked like it had been slept in, a used one. There was lots of stuff on top of the bed but it wasn’t a made bed.
 
Good find Deug. So they had the house on the market in May last year - I wonder at what point that plan changed and SW decided to buy out BL.
Maybe when a plan was hatched and they figured out how they might get the financing done? Interesting that BL did not know who was going to buy him out/be the purchaser? Would this have made a difference if he did know? Would he have balked at his ex continuing to own and make payments on the home?
 
When I went to the realty site which shows the floorplan posted above, it has a 'street' view - I followed the roadways a bit.. it is a MAZE in there! No matter *where* he parked, how on earth could he have carried a body out without anyone noticing? Millions of potential eyes on him! I'm thinking he must've brought his car around to the road at the front door? But then the kids could've woken and looked out their windows??
Here is a view of the back of their property (googlemaps 2019):
22 Bazes Shaw Back View.jpg

ETA: I can't find my way on googlemaps to get to the *front* of their property.. is it even possible to drive up to the front? Can anyone tell me how to get to the front? Googlemaps takes me to a different building than their unit.
 
Last edited:
There must be some point to the wet bed, bedding in drawers/cupboard etc, that is central to the prosecutions theory of what happened, otherwise why introduce the info about both, using kids statement and police officers statement, at this stage.

I think its going to be really at the heart of what happened to SW.

Of course, theres always the slim possibility that SW was alive when she was taken from the house? Has he drugged her drink ? Knocked her unconscious on the bed? Etc There would be minimal forensics if this were the case? Seemed odd that he felt he needed to state that he never crossed the threshold of that room. I think that is exactly what he did do that night.
 
There must be some point to the wet bed, bedding in drawers/cupboard etc, that is central to the prosecutions theory of what happened, otherwise why introduce the info about both, using kids statement and police officers statement, at this stage.

I think its going to be really at the heart of what happened to SW.

Of course, theres always the slim possibility that SW was alive when she was taken from the house? Has he drugged her drink ? Knocked her unconscious on the bed? Etc There would be minimal forensics if this were the case? Seemed odd that he felt he needed to state that he never crossed the threshold of that room. I think that is exactly what he did do that night.
Yes, I was wondering same (about taking her out live). It seems BL had the top floor/loft MBR, while S shared the second level with her 3 kids in the 2 other bedrooms. That would be right next or near to them. Wouldn't it be hard to do it without noise to wake them up in such close proximity? Unless he did it while she was sleeping? Strangling also may not leave any DNA. Or.... unless he did whatever, on the main floor and she wasn't upstairs at all? Perhaps she broached the subject of the his share of the equity in the house being bought out and they got into it? But.. with the wet top of the bed... that seems doubtful!?
 
Maybe when a plan was hatched and they figured out how they might get the financing done? Interesting that BL did not know who was going to buy him out/be the purchaser? Would this have made a difference if he did know? Would he have balked at his ex continuing to own and make payments on the home?

Thinking about it a bit more. I wonder if the phrase BL did not know who was buying the house, actually meant he just did not know whether it was SW or whether it was her sons who were buying him out.
As Legally said, earlier in the thread, with money laundering regulations, it would be very strange for an estate agent to accept an offer for the house without revealing full details to the seller.
 
When I went to the realty site which shows the floorplan posted above, it has a 'street' view - I followed the roadways a bit.. it is a MAZE in there! No matter *where* he parked, how on earth could he have carried a body out without anyone noticing? Millions of potential eyes on him! I'm thinking he must've brought his car around to the road at the front door? But then the kids could've woken and looked out their windows??
Here is a view of the back of their property (googlemaps 2019):
View attachment 208301

ETA: I can't find my way on googlemaps to get to the *front* of their property.. is it even possible to drive up to the front? Can anyone tell me how to get to the front? Googlemaps takes me to a different building than their unit.

It is a complete maze in that area and house numbers can be a nightmare to follow. Also, again from memory, the map that Legally put up on here, it's a bit of a walk from the house to CP2. Maybe he had some kind of baggage trolley.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
301
Guests online
1,169
Total visitors
1,470

Forum statistics

Threads
587,559
Messages
17,884,976
Members
227,148
Latest member
Blackbird1
Back
Top