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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I agree re the reporting/case preparation. It hasn't seemed that good.

Re being locked in - very possible but I wonder why. Would it not have been easier for just one of them ( SB probably, as he had the car ) to go and get the drink and for LH to stay with Kayleigh.
and no mention of any till receipt for coke - unless this was just another lie by LH.
 
It would, but if the shouting/screaming and banging went on for some time (as I think I read somewhere) it makes more sense if K was alone in the house.
 
12:17 Beadman's barrister makes further accusations against Harlow
Mr Metzer, for Beadman, outlines Beadman's version of how events unfolded in Harlow's flat.

He says that Kayleigh was woken by the fight between Harlow and Beadman and leaves the house half-naked after she finds out Harlow had been trying to have sex with her.

Harlow replies: "All of that's complete lies."

12:06 Beadman's barrister asks Harlow if he tried to have sex with Kayleigh as she slept
Mr Metzer asks Harlow if it is true that he and Beadman had a "fierce" argument and then a fight over Harlow trying to have sex with Kayleigh.

Mr Metzer says: "You told Mr Beadman that Kayleigh was not an adult and she was only 15. And while she was asleep you tried to take off Kayleigh's trousers and tried to have sex with her."

Harlow replies: "That's a lie."

Mr Metzer states that Harlow and Beadman punched each other during the argument, which Harlow also denies.



Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/k...tory-29421476-detail/story.html#ixzz4C7NZJVJY
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

Passage from today's updates. If I've interpreted this right then this is what SB said happened??
 
Thanks for the link PinkButterfly, have been so busy this morning, is my first chance to catch up.

So looks as though LH and SB are telling conflicting stories re what happened. LH claiming he was asleep and SB claiming he and LH were arguing which led to Kayleigh fleeing the house.

The bit about the coat is confusing. I thought on Friday the police officer stated categorically that it was not Kayleighs coat. But today's evidence just says this item was not recovered ?

I presume that SB will be giving evidence, as he is now back in court.
 
What a crock of ***** !!! Beadman claims that he tried to stop Harlow from having sex with a sleeping Kayleigh - how gallant of him! - but then is okay with raping her and murdering her and leaving her naked body in the bushes!?

I also note, that today's trial notes suggest that they both went to the shop/garage and so Kayleigh was left at the home of Harlow, alone - if only someone, anyone, had taken some notice of that banging and screaming! ...
 
I agree mrazda71... not sure I quite believe that someone who admits to raping and murdering a school girl would try and "protect her" as it were from LH, unless it was because he wanted her for himself.

Talking of LH I'm not sure I buy his "heavy sleeper" excuse. I know after a drink or two it can make it hard to be woken, but screams that woke neighbours you'd have thought you'd hear in your own house.

EDIT: spelling error and clarity
 
Alyce said:
The bit about the coat is confusing. I thought on Friday the police officer stated categorically that it was not Kayleighs coat. But today's evidence just says this item was not recovered ?
Click to expand...

Presumably it was examined and they ascertained that it did not belong to Kayleigh, and was not considered to have any evidential value.
 
A fight between SB and LH does fit in with LH having minor injuries all over him, injuries that (apart from the one by his eye) SB would probably not have seen. Do we know when SB came up with the fight scenario?

SB's story doesn't ring true though. Would LH start taking Kayleigh's trousers off and trying to have sex with Kayleigh while SB was still there? Yes, it explains why she had no trousers on when she ran out but I'm not convinced that it was LH she was running from and not SB. I'm also not convinced that it was LH taking her trousers off, rather than SB taking her trousers off after LH had gone to bed.
 
Cherwell said:
Presumably it was examined and they ascertained that it did not belong to Kayleigh, and was not considered to have any evidential value.
Click to expand...

They seemed to be saying today that it was amongst items that the housing association kept/were given, who handed them back to LH's family. If so I guess they could send police to the family now and ask to see what it was.

DC Spence replies that the item on the sofa was not recovered.

Items not kept by officers were left in the possession of the housing assocation and then returned to Harlow's family
Click to expand...

www.leicestermercury.co.uk/kayleigh-haywood-monday-live-trial-updates/story-29421476-detail/story.html#ixzz4C7wp3mHK
 
It's very hard to decide who to believe. If they did fight it would also explain lh broken glasses. Not sure I believe sb was trying to stop lh though!!!

It does sound from the evidence first thing that perhaps the fleece did slip through the net of items collected from the flat and would think maybe too late now to check?? Surely kh family could confirm if that's what she was wearing. I can't remember what the description was when she initially went missing. Can anyone else?
 
Where were her trousers found? LH mentions her bag and shoes were still at his the next day but doesn't mention her trousers. We know she left the house without them though...
 
mrazda71 said:
What a crock of ***** !!! Beadman claims that he tried to stop Harlow from having sex with a sleeping Kayleigh - how gallant of him! - but then is okay with raping her and murdering her and leaving her naked body in the bushes!?

I also note, that today's trial notes suggest that they both went to the shop/garage and so Kayleigh was left at the home of Harlow, alone - if only someone, anyone, had taken some notice of that banging and screaming! ...
Click to expand...

Indeed, how gallant of him !

And then we have LH saying that he warned Kayleigh against taking a lift with SB - both out to point the finger at the other
 
Having woke up to find Kayleigh was missing from his flat, leaving behind her coat, bag and shoes, Harlow invited a female friend around to go out to McDonald's with him, the jury hears.


Harlow replies: "I had no reason to believe that anything bad had happened to her."

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/k.../story.html#ixzz4C7NZJVJY#WmCeth5rsY9xv22f.99


Bizarre if they think anyone is going to believe this rubbish story.

I can - just about - accept that Kayleigh might have left a coat behind, even though it was November and cold. But bag and shoes - no way.

Where did LH think Kayliegh had gone, and how ? She was 15, she didnt have a car, no buses around there on a Sunday but she had gone off without the need to even wear her shoes...
 
Alyce said:
Having woke up to find Kayleigh was missing from his flat, leaving behind her coat, bag and shoes, Harlow invited a female friend around to go out to McDonald's with him, the jury hears.


Harlow replies: "I had no reason to believe that anything bad had happened to her."

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/k.../story.html#ixzz4C7NZJVJY#WmCeth5rsY9xv22f.99


Bizarre if they think anyone is going to believe this rubbish story.

I can - just about - accept that Kayleigh might have left a coat behind, even though it was November and cold. But bag and shoes - no way.

Where did LH think Kayliegh had gone, and how ? She was 15, she didnt have a car, no buses around there on a Sunday but she had gone off without the need to even wear her shoes...
Click to expand...

Her phone wasn't left at his so he may have assumed that she rang somebody/a taxi and got a lift home and that she'd been so drunk she forgot about her bag and shoes.

I'm interested to hear more from the female friend he went to MCDonalds with though. The questioning today seemed to be hinting that he'd told her he was going to chuck the bag away. If Kayleigh had left on good terms why would he say that? Surely he'd just give them to her next time he saw them? It does make me think there was some kind of falling out between LH and Kayleigh that night. If he was aiming to chuck the bag because he knew she was dead and had been involved in fasely imprisoning her, or had just been involved in falsely imprisoning her then it was a bit daft to A) let the friend see the bag and B) tell her he was going to dispose of it.

Mrs Moore asks Harlow whether his friend took the deodorant because he had told her he was going to "chuck" the bag. He says he did not


www.leicestermercury.co.uk/kayleigh-haywood-monday-live-trial-updates/story-29421476-detail/story.html#ixzz4C8TsrP8h
 
I think that because he let his friend see Kayleigh's bag, that to me hints that he was unaware that she came to harm. I don't think LH is telling the whole truth, but I can buy his story of being reluctant to get himself into rouble when he knew she was missing. Obviously not the right thing to do at all, but if that's the case then I can believe him.

Not sure what else I actually believe though. Some bits seem a bit off. Such as LH says he didn't really know SB but says he'd spoke to LH's mum about his face injury, suggesting they knew each other quite well. Also he asked him for a lift to the shop which I personally wouldn't do with someone I didn't know very well. And then he invited him back to his house. Coupled with the alleged staging of a Facebook conversation where they spoke of Kayleigh being missing (this was mentioned one day last week in the trial). Just doesn't add up.
 
There's different levels of knowing someone though. If they went to the same school, they would probably have been acquainted for a long time, without necessarily getting to know each other well. If someone I knew slightly from school became my next-door neighbour, someone I had been aware of for years, I wouldn't think twice about accepting a lift from them.
 
Pinkbutterfly said:
http://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local-news/kayleigh-haywood-trial-girls-killer-11500067

So the mattress he went to sleep on was in the lounge, I'd believed before he meant his bedroom. So he was really close to Kayleigh when all what happened happened. How did he not wake up??
Click to expand...

It's confusing because elsewhere he talks about being upstairs

Harlow says Kayleigh had to be helped up and down the stairs to the toilet

Harlow tells the court: "She was quite unsteady on her feet and I didn't want her to fall down the stairs.

"The bathroom was downstairs so I helped her."
Click to expand...
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/k...tory-29421476-detail/story.html#ixzz4C7NZJVJY
 
It's an upside down house, the lounge and kitchen upstairs, the bedroom and bathroom downstairs. It was in the first thread.
 
So SB's barrister doesn't (apparently) disagree that LH went with him to buy the booze. It seems to settle that little unknown.

I also think there was uncertainty about whether the three of them had been seen out in the park on Saturday afternoon. I think that may have arisen because it was misreported quite early on, that Kayleigh's phone had been found by a dog walker in or near the park on Saturday afternoon. So I think I'm right in saying that it has been confirmed now that her phone was found on the Sunday morning, and trying to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, maybe the 'rumour' that there had been sightings of her in the park on Saturday might have been caused by the police probing that as a possibility. I may have got this wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 695 (members: 174, guests: 521)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
521
Total visitors
695
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

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