So it can be done: a snifferdog and circumstantial evidence. Why not the McCanns

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: So it can be done: a snifferdog and circumstantial evidence. Why not the McCanns

Post  Guest on Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:41 pm

Hi Bebootje,

There is a thread on this I started back in March here................


Back to top Go down

Re: So it can be done: a snifferdog and circumstantial evidence. Why not the McCanns

Post  Guest on Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:43 pm

Here is the first post of that thread.................

candyfloss wrote:Did anyone watch Murder in Suburbia last night on CI channel? It was very interesting.

Kate Prout disappeared from her home one day and her husband was eventually charged with her murder. There was no body, and only a teeny bit of circumstantial evidence, ie her diaries and that he had been violent towards her in the past, and that she was going to divorce him and force him to sel the farm to get her half share.

The interesting bit was that Eddie the sniffer dog was brought in and signalled in the house behind the sofa and the patio door just like the MM case. The police had forensics go through the house but found nothing to incriminate him, and they suspected he must have strangled her as there was not blood etc. He was convicted of her murder on flimsy evidence. They also said his demenour was not right.

Here is some background info

Detective reveals 'frustrations' of Kate Prout murder investigation
3:50pm Friday 5th February 2010

Print Email Share Comments(0)

THE leading police officer investigating the disappearance of farmer's wife Kate Prout today revealed the "frustrating" nature of the case.

Hundreds of police combed the 270 acre farm they shared days after Kate Prout vanished following a divorce settlement row in November 2007.

Officers painstakingly searched Redhill Farm in Redmarley, Glos, for five weeks from November 14.

The search was the biggest ever mounted in Gloucestershire and involved underwater search teams, aerial surveillance and ground penetrating radar.

Officers even sifted through animal excrement in the belief she may have been fed to the pigs.

The search failed to unearth a body, but Prout was still charged with her murder on March 10, 2008. Today, after Prout was found guilty of her murder following a three week trial at Bristol Crown Court, the lead officer in the case revealed the difficulties with a 'no body' murder.

Acting Detective Superintendent Neil Kelly, from Gloucestershire Police, has led the investigation since Kate's disappearance over two years ago.

He said: "The fact that we never had a body meant we had to introduce far more circumstantial evidence to try and establish certain facts in a much more difficult way.

"It has been a very frustrating investigation in that respect. We had to prove that Kate was dead, without a body. We had to prove that someone killed her, and finally that Adrian Prout was the one who did it.

"The types of enquiries we had to undertake to prove these have been extremely challenging."

Det Supt Kelly revealed that Adrian was the number one suspect from the day Kate was reported missing, and that Prout's behaviour remained consistent after his arrest and throughout subsequent interviews

"Adrian has always been a major suspect, the major suspect in fact," he added.

"There were some key facts that were obvious early on that could reasonably lead you to believe that Adrian Prout was the number one suspect.

"Not least is the fact he left it five days to report her missing.

"And he only did so after he was virtually persuaded to do so by a concerned relative.

"In terms of his demeanor and attitude, Adrian remained consistent throughout.

"He's been very calm, almost unconcerned throughout. In terms of what he's said, he has in part been been consistent, but in key areas, his account has changed to the extent we would say he's been lying. "One aspect is the discussion they had on the day before Kate went missing. Kate put to him her increased demand for a divorce settlement.

"He lied to us about that conversation in the beginning and when it became obvious he couldn't lie any more he gave up."

Det Supt Kelly said the row over the divorce settlement was enough to suspect Prout of his wife's murder, and his affair with housekeeper Diane Bellamy.

He added: "The fact that he was going to lose their farm was central to the whole thing.

"She upgraded her demand and it meant he would have to sell the farm and this was something he was desperate not to lose.

"Other factors included the Diane Bellamy situation. Adrian Prout was trying to minimise the significance of that relationship, but the level of contact between them was very significant."

But he added, unless Prout reveals the whereabouts of the body, it may never be known how she was killed or what happened to her since.

"The first thing we'd be keen to do is to appeal to Adrian to let us know where the body is because that would give closure for the family but in the absence of that we would only renew our search efforts given some meaningful intelligence."


Back to top Go down

Re: So it can be done: a snifferdog and circumstantial evidence. Why not the McCanns

Post  Bebootje on Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:11 pm

Interesting, didn't know in fact it was Eddy involved. There are a lot of similarities with the McCann case. Frustrating indeed.


Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-07-06

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum