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

Also hearing these "noises" would you not look at your cctv first,rather than go charging out? then realise your cctv was OFF and turn it bk on.

 

When asked where Sarah was, the person explained Lacomba had told them Miss Wellgreen 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.

Claim 'bed was wet'
They “checked in Sarah’s room and she wasn’t there and her bed was wet and she left her phone and her purse,” said the occupant.

The witness claimed the bed “was wet on the right hand side where the wardrobe is” on the “top bit of the bed”.

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

They claim Lacomba then “went back to bed”, as did the occupant of the house.”

So occupant had been told BL was out in his taxi, not out hearing animals?

 

Im guessing it was an assumption made by the child. It does sound like he was out longer than it would take to see off the black panther lol

 

I’m not so sure it was an assumption. If a child had got up to find themselves home alone, would they not quiz their parent upon their return? Particularly as it then states they went back to bed at the same time after he got back.
I think the occupant was pretty secure with their knowledge MOO

edit to add... are you local Blue? You’ve heard about our local rumoured panther sightings?

 

Noooo not a local lol....we have a panther urban myth round staffordshire aswell (bloody get about dont they?)

 

I'm liking the prosecuting QC she's being pretty brutal to BL. Hope she goes to town on mammy next.

 

Saw it in the woods behind Dordon!

 

Just caught up. Cheers Alyce.

MOO:

Any lingering doubts about BL being responsible for SW's disappearance and likely death have been utterly banished by today's proceedings.


I am interested in the practicalities involved as it appears there are no incriminating forensics in house, car , persons or belongings?


I do worry , both sides of the fence, about the line between fair comment and victim shaming. I really feel it is within reason to hold ,and express, assessments with an unsavoury flavour or tilt, so long as its done intelligently, sensitively and without malice. Certainly without any blame or hint of any victim's outcome being in any way deserved.
Also must be an understanding that other people's views on this very tricky subject will differ widely.

I think on the whole, we balance quite well. I like to think that in most examples we are all on the same side, that of justice and fairness.

A nice bunch we have here.


Finally, long day for me so im rambling, i really hope that SW is found and her remaining family can have answers and some level of closure.

Mañana

 

Sorry, I'm having trouble catching up today.. it's probably already been noted, but:

“I didn’t want them thinking that I was trying to hide something else.”

keyword obviously = 'else'

 

If he actually states that 'he wanted to be caught on CCTV', then that sure gives indication of how much his mind was working to make decisions based on trying to be one step ahead of the police. To me, that is really incriminating for him to have said that.

 

Doesn't the simcard itself hold information? Hopefully police confiscated his simcard?

 

That *has* to speak to the fact that for police to *see* what was on the phone was going to be even *more* incriminating than his action of disposing of the phones (which, imo, is VERY incriminating!). Had to have been pretty bad, whatever was on there. Hard to believe police couldn't have obtained at least some of the info through other means, such as from the provider, through celltower records, wifi connections, browser searching (unless done 'anonymously'??)? imo.

 

Just reminded me of a similar phrase from today.... BBM from:


12:36 KEY EVENT


Were the police already looking at me?

 

C'mon, if me mum saw it, or says it, then it's gotta be true!

 

Following guys when I can, many thanks for all the updates much appreciated.

Share the discomfort re the thin line between commenting on the facts as they are presented and forming opinions.

Buuuut - agree this isn't a crime of passion, or jealousy. Calculated financial gain, IMO.

 

Wishing I had more time and was less sleep-deprived at moment to keep up with this compelling case and trial. I really appreciate it when a thread gets into such an interesting and civil discussion so thanks to all contributing.

But I had to comment and agree with Mrazda's post about Sarah's apparently unusual amount of different relationships with men and the effect that this might have on the case. Of course it is relevant because the more men a woman has in her life the more at risk she is from one or other or several of them. More suspects, therefore maybe a more confusing picture, and in this case I do believe that Lacomba (and his father IIRC) has from the beginning tried to use this to his advantage. Subtle "slut-shaming" IMO.

What worries me in this case is I don't feel that I have heard Sarah's voice in this trial. Perhaps I have missed this but it is so important that her friends and family get to speak for her. She hasn't even had the dignity of being found and put to rest. I haven't seen anything about her childhood, we know she was married very young which is nowadays again unusual. Very often there are psychological reasons why women will gravitate towards men, looking for love and affection even though they have had bad experiences with men time and time again. Often they will try and cement that bond through having children with those men. Again they need the love that children give them.
Pausing for now as getting v emotional!