GUILTY UK - Kayleigh Haywood, 15, Ibstock, Leicestershire, 13 Nov 2015 - #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Also LH is very clear on the events the night before and has been able to describe who did what and when (supposedly) but then he can't account for how his glasses got broken or how he ended up with bruising on his face. That's not some little detail to forget. I know personally if I had been drinking heavily the night before and woke up with broken glasses I'd be more inclined to remember how that had happened rather than little details such as who was where and when

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
sar2them1984 said:
Also LH is very clear on the events the night before and has been able to describe who did what and when (supposedly) but then he can't account for how his glasses got broken or how he ended up with bruising on his face. That's not some little detail to forget. I know personally if I had been drinking heavily the night before and woke up with broken glasses I'd be more inclined to remember how that had happened rather than little details such as who was where and when

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He's conveniently only able to remember what suits him. If he can remember going to bed, after which there is no mention of him drinking any more alcohol then why can't he remember how his glasses got broken or his injuries.

I'm also wondering about the part where he said that while he was out getting more coke Kayleigh had drank neat vodka and been sick, yet the toxicology report said her alcohol level was below the drink drive limit??
 
Pinkbutterfly said:
He's conveniently only able to remember what suits him. If he can remember going to bed, after which there is no mention of him drinking any more alcohol then why can't he remember how his glasses got broken or his injuries.

I'm also wondering about the part where he said that while he was out getting more coke Kayleigh had drank neat vodka and been sick, yet the toxicology report said her alcohol level was below the drink drive limit??
Click to expand...
Ooh I must have missed that info. Who reported that?

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
This case is so disturbing and upsetting on so many levels that I am having a hard time being here. Poor Kayleigh. Sad beyond belief. So EVIL what those two did to her.
 
I get the impression that because SB has pleaded guilty to murder that LH is slowly turning on him and accusing him of being the sole perpetrator. If you think about it if he pulled it off there's a huge difference in sentencing for a first time grooming offence than there is for kidnap..

Maximum 10 years for grooming and life for kidnap

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
sar2them1984 said:
I get the impression that because SB has pleaded guilty to murder that LH is slowly turning on him and accusing him of being the sole perpetrator. If you think about it if he pulled it off there's a huge difference in sentencing for a first time grooming offence than there is for kidnap..
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is why he has not pleaded guilty to the kidnapping bit. He said he thought she was 19, and if that can be corroborated (ie Kayleigh DID say that in their messages) and if he didn't rape or murder her, maybe is guilty of little more than being a total and utter sleazeball. Personally, I think it's way deeper than that and the man's a dirty predator.

There is a LOT more to come out. Buckle up!
 
It says Kayleigh wasn't the only one he'd been messaging under 16. So it's not really his first grooming offence. He's just been caught this time. It's sad that poor Kayleigh had to go through all that for it to come to an end.

Before reading the trial, I thought perhaps LH had been a bit unfortunate. Perhaps he did think she was 19, I thought maybe it was unlucky that SB had found Kayleigh there wuth him. So far in the trial it appears it's a lot more sinister than that. I think too, that he knows grooming charge Would be less than kidnap.

It's turning my stomach already. Once the evidence for SB starts I'm sure it'll only get worse.

I keep thinking for her family.
 
JMO but I believe lh also attacked Kayleigh ( or worse ). He is on record as saying he wanted to have sex with drunk, unconscious girls. If he was careful, there will be no evidence and I fear he will get away with just the charges that have been put against him, which may not carry a very long sentence.

Kayleigh was already half naked when she ran from his house at 3am and LHs injuries are consistent with some kind of fight that lasted more than a few seconds.
I think she got away from LH and was just tragically unfortunate that SB then appeared - either from his own house or LHs and captured her.
 
RainbowSkies said:
It says Kayleigh wasn't the only one he'd been messaging under 16. So it's not really his first grooming offence. He's just been caught this time. It's sad that poor Kayleigh had to go through all that for it to come to an end.

Before reading the trial, I thought perhaps LH had been a bit unfortunate. Perhaps he did think she was 19, I thought maybe it was unlucky that SB had found Kayleigh there wuth him. So far in the trial it appears it's a lot more sinister than that. I think too, that he knows grooming charge Would be less than kidnap.

It's turning my stomach already. Once the evidence for SB starts I'm sure it'll only get worse.

I keep thinking for her family.
Click to expand...
Sorry to clarify I meant first offence as in as far as we know he's never been up in court for similar charges of grooming etc

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
sar2them1984 said:
Sorry to clarify I meant first offence as in as far as we know he's never been up in court for similar charges of grooming etc

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I knew what you meant. Was agreeing with you, just didn't communicate that very well in my post :)
 
No problem. Hopefully SBs counsel rip his testimony to shreds!

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Wonder why today's court hearings have been adjourned, may be Beadman refusing to cooperate?
 
nothing being reported via Leicester Mercury and nothing listed in Nottingham Crown Court rota. Every Court at Nottingham is showing hearings, except for Court 1, so could possibly be something going on there, which is not able to be reported ?
 
Apparently the trial was listed today for Court One, but was then adjourned - about 4 hours ago.

Trial will recommence tomorrow at 10am
 
A few extra bits reported from yesterday I believe (I can't work out why he said SB didn't have the scratches on Saturday evening when they were together, he only mentioned Friday) -

On Sunday morning, Harlow said he woke up feeling "quite groggy" and did not know where Kayleigh was, although her shoes were still in his flat.
He then went to see Beadman.
"He [Beadman] had scratches all over his face which he didn't have on Friday night," Harlow said.
"He said he had got them at work, he is a landscape gardener. I didn't think anything of it at the time.


..............


Agreed statements read to the jury by the prosecution confirmed that blood attributable to both Kayleigh and Beadman was found on the thigh of his jeans.
A post-mortem examination conducted on Kayleigh's body identified extensive blunt force injuries to her neck and head, as well as underlying fracturing of facial bones.
The jury heard the pathologist was unable to determine how many "impacts" had been inflicted on Kayleigh but her injuries could not be have been caused by a single blow.
Medical evidence relating to injuries found on Beadman was also put before the court.
Jurors heard that Beadman informed a medic shortly after his arrest that he had not been able to form relationships with women and had been having "dark thoughts" for about two years.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1783629855190777&id=1663731053847325

 
Tortoise, thanks for that. I was just reading it before and also wondered why he didnt mention Saturday night in relation to the scratches. If they were in the kitchen, drinking, then surely the scratches would have been obvious.

Also, the bit about LH went to see SB on the Sunday morning. I thought I read somewhere that SB said he left his keys in LHs house on the Saturday night, but this hasn't been mentioned in LHs statement.
 
Alyce said:
Tortoise, thanks for that. I was just reading it before and also wondered why he didnt mention Saturday night in relation to the scratches. If they were in the kitchen, drinking, then surely the scratches would have been obvious.

Also, the bit about LH went to see SB on the Sunday morning. I thought I read somewhere that SB said he left his keys in LHs house on the Saturday night, but this hasn't been mentioned in LHs statement.
Click to expand...


Yes I've read those 2 different scenarios too -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 682 (members: 174, guests: 508)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
508
Total visitors
682
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,178
Messages
18,235,862
Members
234,310
Latest member
Robear89
Back
Top