Accused Of Murdering Our Son

[DinosaurDiana]

Have any of you watched it, and what do you think ?

The fact that the documentary maker spent a lot of time with them and thought they hadn't done it makes me think they didn't.

@Tlollj

That makes sense *@Pinot4evs* but where’s his body?

In the sea would be my guess.

I'm not sure if the parents did it or not BUT I'd bet money they know more than they are letting on.

Being both ex-police, they would know how to cover something up. And at the time they would still have known serving officers locally....no way anyone would have even considered it as a possible murder by one of their own.

People can't just disappear into thin air. Someone knows what's happened to him, and I suspect that someone is his parents. My gut feeling is that there was some kind of row at home, maybe over the football ticket and he died accidentally. It does beg the question of why cover that up, of course. I can't think of a motive for them to have intentionally killed him, so that seems the most likely possibility.

I'd not considered slavery of course, that is possible but how/when? And although I know those people prey on those with learning disabilities/ no relatives, surely they wouldn't want someone with Stephen's physical disabilities? Or who was the child of 2 ex police officers?

And how practically could that have happened? Let's say he comes out the loo, mum isn't there and he starts talking to someone, maybe he knew locally or through the organisation he was training with, and walked off with them. But that would have had to occur in minutes at most, for the mother not to have seen him/them walking off when she came out of the loo.

Unless the loo story is BS, and he left straight from his house with someone he knew and came to harm/ was enslaved that way. But if that was the case why wouldn't the parents say that?

There definitely is more to this. I can't help feeling so sorry for Stephen though, going through that horrendous accident, coping with disability, finally starting to gain some independence and then all cut short. So sad.

@AdoptedBumpkin

I agree.

I saw this on t.v. a few weeks ago. The police had enough evidence to arrest them. What was behind that ?

The Dad seemed defensive. Like others, I'm a bit sceptical of him. His whole tone of voice seemed to be, 'well, if that's what you think, prove it.'

Both parents had been serving Police Officers in previous years. Like that would make any difference.

I'm also, again like other posters, surprised his Mum didn't call out to him in the toilets after he failed to appear within a reasonable period of time. She was also his carer due to his disabilities. Some are saying they wouldn't dream of doing this. OK, not to an adult child with no additional needs.

I don't know about asking a random man to see if her son was still in there. But to not stand outside the toilet block and call to him in a loud, clear voice does seem odd.

Something that a PP said upthread really stood out to me. He had a walking disability, so if he walked home before her, she would have seen him or caught up with him. She would have been able to see him if he was behind her.

There's more to this than meets the eye. The Dad knows a lot more than he's prepared to admit. The Mum is going along with what the Dad says. Which makes me wonder did he put her up to it i.e. the story of him disappearing when he went to the toilet.

Or, as some have suggested, did he disappear on a different day ?

(It reminds me of the story of the Disappearance of Margaret Fleming where a girl with additional needs was murdered by her two carers in Scotland, even though her body has not been found and the carers deny any wrongdoing. The carers got a life sentence each. Some say that if the male carer pre-deceases the female carer, she will probably feel able to give the authorities more information. The documentary gave the impression that her body may be in the lake that was by their house.)

Unless the loo story is BS

That story will unravel over time, I suspect.

@MissMissTorrance

I also think the Dad bribed the pal from the pub to say he had seen him in Redcar. Dad, if a police officer, will have had social standing in this community and I believe his drinking pals would have gone out of their way to please him and do what he asked. When things became investigated further this pal got cold feet and changed his story and admitted to his wife he hadn't even spoken to Stephen despite earlier in the police investigation telling them he'd had a conversation with him.

Absolutely. This man, who is now dead, went from telling his wife he had actually spoken to Stephen, to saying he’d just seen him. Very odd.

I saw it when it was first on and I think it was very odd. I can't imagine why his mother wouldn't have checked the toilets or asked someone to check, and if he had walked in either direction along the beach she would have seen him.

Something that struck me as odd is that when the police interviewed them they asked them what they had bought Stephen for Xmas and they said they couldn't remember. If it was the last time I saw my son and it was only a few days before I think I'd know. They were very strange.

Something happened to him, and someone knows what and why. I don't believe the toilet story at all.

It was also a long time ago - they weren't the elderly people they are now.

Unless the loo story is BS

This part left me feeling that lies were being told.

*Unless the loo story is BS

This part left me feeling that lies were being told.*

Did his parents agree on a cover story or has she been coerced into it ?

The Dad seems very much the main driver and comes across as defensive to the point of arsey.

However, what I keep coming back to is the Police had enough evidence to arrest them. I felt the Police were effectively saying, 'we know you know more than you're letting on.'

Also the, 'tone' of the documentary was, 'I'm the real victim here.'

I just can't believe you'd leave anyone in a toilet assuming they'd walked home. Even an adult friend id make sure they hadn't fallen ill in the toilets

I do think expecting parents who lost their son 30 years ago to manifest fresh grief is a bit much.

His loss isn't fresh. It's been integrated.

To be accused is new distress.

I'm thinking back to the days before mobile phone use was normal. You did just go to the place you'd be meeting, or where you think they'd go. You'd be prepared for a wait. There wasn't this constant having to be in touch and having the means of doing so.

The mother didn't tell Stephen she was going to use the Ladies. She would have assumed that he left when she was in her cubicle. She'd have assumed he'd walked home after her - as he thought he was doing, as she surmised. She'd have kicked herself for not waiting till he'd come out. She said she saw two men with a seven year old girl to in the gents. She'd noted it and thought they'd had to do it as they couldn't go in the Ladies. (Two male friends with the kid of one of them). I don't think you'd make up that particular story if you were fabricating a whole set of circumstances. You'd invent something commonplace. I think she was certain Steven had left while she was in the loo, and she second guessed what he'd do, as you did pre-mobiles.

As police officers, they probably deduced, and their mates agreed, that he must be deceased. They probably think they know what it all is. Perhaps mates on the force leaked what was known and they made their assumptions.

If Stephen had collapsed in the gents, someone else visiting the loo would have called on ambulance. She'd assume he had walked back home.

I agree that making up the story of the little girl would be odd.

Even before mobile phone use I don't think I would have assumed he would have left. I'd have checked and been concerned. It just doesn't ring true to me. And unless she'd been in the toilet for ages she'd have seen him walking off in the distance.

I had a feeling the presenter (Mark something who has made other crime documentaries) didn't give away whether he believed them or not. If anything, he might have wanted them to think that so they would drop their guard. A bit like Louis Theroux, his game was to stay neutral to keep them on the back foot.

Unless I'm wrong and he told them "Yes I believe you're innocent."

Toilet story always sounded like it was made up in a panic.

I saw the programme when it was on TV a while ago. I have no idea whether the parents are guilty of any wrongdoing or not, but I just wanted to say please don't base your opinions on their failure to perform grief in the way that you feel it ought to be performed.

It really is true that people can be anguished beyond what you can possibly imagine and yet remain able to speak calmly when they need to. It really is also true that people can be anguished beyond what you can possibly imagine and yet remain unable to find their way to the kind of sobbing and complete collapse that might bring them some small emotional relief.

Time and again people have been wrongly convicted (by courts and media and public opinion) because they don't perform grief in the way that others demand.

Random I do agree with that based on personal experience.

To me the parents came across genuine, I don’t believe for a min it was them. They didn’t appear odd at all. I believe he met someone and something has happened along the way. Someone somewhere knows something.

@Random789

I saw the programme when it was on TV a while ago. I have no idea whether the parents are guilty of any wrongdoing or not, but I just wanted to say please don't base your opinions on their failure to perform grief in the way that you feel it ought to be performed.

It really is true that people can be anguished beyond what you can possibly imagine and yet remain able to speak calmly when they need to. It really is also true that people can be anguished beyond what you can possibly imagine and yet remain unable to find their way to the kind of sobbing and complete collapse that might bring them some small emotional relief.

Time and again people have been wrongly convicted (by courts and media and public opinion) because they don't perform grief in the way that others demand.

Totally agree with this. And it was a long time ago. So, as a poster said upthread, we can’t judge them for not displaying the same ‘fresh grief’ as if he’d just vanished. Plus they’ve been through some pretty difficult experiences to boot - which I think would naturally make you guarded / cautious. I don’t think they did it, and actually felt very sorry for them both.

I have just watched this on the back of this thread, very odd
What was Stephens disability? It was said he was disabled due to an accident as a child, and it appeared as though he had a limp and paralysed arm? were there any cognitive disabilities that made him even more vulnerable?
Apparently he was seen with an older man who was wearing a, long grey coat I wondered if there was something in that?

What was Stephens disability? It was said he was disabled due to an accident as a child, and it appeared as though he had a limp and paralysed arm? were there any cognitive disabilities that made him even more vulnerable?

It bothered me too that this wasn't made clear. The impression that I got was that he was physically disabled but they feared he might have been mistaken as having cognitive issues due to speech problems? Which I can confirm, as someone who's physically disabled, does happen, but I couldn't really get a firm grasp on it.

Apparently he was seen with an older man who was wearing a, long grey coat I wondered if there was something in that?

This was the classmate (?) who saw him walking across the street from her house, right? I personally felt like that wasn't very credible. Not like she was lying, but that she saw a physically disabled man and thought it was Steven. It didn't look that close to me to be able to make a definite ID.

We have some PPs on this thread who know Marske - it looked bloody vast on TV! Is it believable that he could've fallen and be somewhere in the underbrush up on the cliffs? I felt like the doc implied he would've been washed up if he fell into the water due to tidal currents/patterns but I'd love to know if that's scientifically accurate or if they minimised it because it's more "interesting" the other way.

It is the role of the sister that particularly interests me. The programme stated she initially set up some sort of missing campaign so what is the reason for her total lack of on-going input?
My theory is either that she suspects her parents or, and I hope this is true, Stephen contacted her and said he didn't want to be found.