GUILTY UK - Kayleigh Haywood, 15, Ibstock, Leicestershire, 13 November 2015 - #1

[Edinlass]

<modsnip>

Again so many theory's with not alot to go on, going to months and months before we get any kind of scenario.

Both in court tomorrow morning, will they make pleas??

 

[skibaboo]

I'll hold my hand up and admit I jumped to conclusions about LH. I try to avoid judging early just, seeing he made horror movies, had that serial killer title on FB, and a lot of photos of Jason in mask, and it being Friday the 13th. I jumped to conclusions. It's a lesson learned.

Having said that, imo he is complicit. He groomed and had illegal sexual activity with a 15 year old girl. A 15 year old girl who was raped and murdered by his friend. On the night she was going to meet with LH. (If that is what we are lead to believe from reports)

If LH hadn't of groomed her, she would not have been there. I think its greatly improbable it was random, and SB just happened to do this to Kayleigh and not be aware of the relationship she had with LH.

JMO

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Wow, 85 guests looking at this thread right now, please come and join us!

:discuss:

 

[sleuth-d-]

I'm not sure what the age of consent is there, but if she was under that age it would be considered rape. In the States even if she's over the age of consent it's still rape if the age difference is over 4 years. I'm not familiar with the laws there so who knows.

you are right, it is different over here.
but my main point of discussion was how the police have been able to distinguish between rape and sexual activity in this case. unless there is a witness.

 

[Edinlass]

'There are new offences of sexual activity with a child under 16. These cover a range of behaviour, involving both physical and non-physical contact.'

To combat increasing sexual approaches to children on-line, there is a new offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. This makes it a crime to befriend a child on the Internet or by other means and meet or intend to meet the child with the intention of abusing them. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/

So a sexual activity charge can also be non-physical. Maybe sexual, graphic talk through FB or nude pictures / videos perhaps...

 

[Insp.Dots]

Neighbours in that area said the housing development was new and many of them had only lived there for a few months. Someone ( I will try and find the quote ) said, we are all new together here.

Yes sorry, what I should have added was that LH is down as living with his family at George STREET, Coalville rather than George AVENUE.

 

[Edinlass]

Section 9: Sexual activity with a child

The elements of the offence are:

(A) aged 18 or over intentionally touches (B)
the touching is sexual, and
either (B) is under 16 and (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) is 16 or over, or
(B) is under 13.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/#a22

Doesn't coincide with him apparantly thinking she was 19 then, BS IMO.

 

[helenlouise426]

How do I find their facebooks?

 

[Insp.Dots]

Bombshell where ????

 

[Cherwell]

It is a five mile walk from Ibstock to Measham. I'd guess the public transport is infrequent. I really don't think she left LH's to walk home and then was attacked by his close friend who also - by sheer coincidence - happened to be interested in young girls.

I've seen men with this kind of mentality all too often. When a woman is involved with their friend they believe that she should like him too. When she doesn't they get offended, feel wronged and get angry. Sometimes of course that leads to the worst.

Put these together, and I can imagine an offer to drive her home, followed by a stop en route and unwelcome advances made.

I've met a few of this type too. He thinks that because you're going out with his friend, he's entitled to have a piece of you too. As though women are property.

 

[MissyLDT]

Welllllllll I didn't expect those charges! I thought it was going to be LH charged with murder and SB the accomplice or the unlucky one dragged into it. Not specifically because of LH's horror fascination; I'm sure if any of us were ever in trouble, the fact we spend time investigating other people's crimes might suddenly become something it isn't. I just expected it to be LH because that's who we believed Kayleigh was meeting. Now I'm swaying towards SB offering Kayleigh a lift home from LH's and taking advantage of the situation. SB doesn't strike me as the type to accost someone in the open air based on what we know about his apparent introverted behaviour.

Was Kayleigh actually seen in the park? or is it just the last place her phone was shown to be? For example, if she had an iPhone and they used 'Find my iPhone' function the park may show as the last place she was. It would be easier to make an assumption if we knew for definite whether the contact to her Mum was by text or phone on Saturday.

As for LH believing Kayleigh was 19, I think this is more what he has told his parents rather than believing she was. I can't remember entirely and I can't find Kayleigh's FB now, so apologies in advance if I'm wrong, but I'm sure there was a photo of her and her friend 'sitting in Science' taken relatively recently and one a bit further back that said something along the lines of ready for school. Since he was her friend on FB I think he'd be able to tell from these and her social circle and lifestyle that she wasn't 19.

I hope someone has a word with SB's family about what they should and shouldn't be posting on social media. They are releasing details that could be pretty important for Kayleigh to get the justice she deserves. Let's face it, they don't really need to be said on social media since it's not as if SB will be reading them anytime soon so the things directed at him should be kept for a visit or phone call!! <modsnip>

 

[sleuth-d-]

'There are new offences of sexual activity with a child under 16. These cover a range of behaviour, involving both physical and non-physical contact.'

To combat increasing sexual approaches to children on-line, there is a new offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. This makes it a crime to befriend a child on the Internet or by other means and meet or intend to meet the child with the intention of abusing them. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/

So a sexual activity charge can also be non-physical. Maybe sexual, graphic talk through FB or nude pictures / videos perhaps...

that would be inciting, which is different to sexual activity:
Sexual activity with a child, Sexual Offences Act 2003 – section 9
and
Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, Sexual Offences Act 2003 – section 10
Maximum sentence: 14 years’ custody (full guidelines page 215)
The offence of sexual activity with a child involves a person over the age of 18 engaging in penetrative or non-penetrative (touching) sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. The offence was introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 following the Home Office review in 2000, Setting the boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences."

further down there is an explanation of the inciting section.

[recopying/referencing a link that was posted upstream]


https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sent...fences_Offences where the victim is child.pdf

see p50 onwards

 

[mrsward]

Iv got it in my head that the other was filming it ..

Wish it wasn't in there ...

But after what I've seen these past few days i wouldn't put it past them.

 

[gia2]

Iv got it in my head that the other was filming it ..

Wish it wasn't in there ...

But after what I've seen these past few days i wouldn't put it past them.

I don't think there is any suggestion of this being the case from the information so far released. The charges don't seem to support the police being aware of this kind of activity.

I really hope it's not the case, it would add an even more awful element to the crime.

 

[sar2them1984]

she has been in the presence these two men over the weekend and has ended up being killed. i would not be trusting any text messages coming from her phone during that time. moo.

let's hope that the police have more evidence than her text messages in relation to the level of charges they have brought against LH. maybe something SB has said independently that corroborates LH's story.

which leads me to... how can they make the distinction between rape or sexual activity charges, unless the two men were both present as witnesses for each other?

You misunderstand me - im not talkong about messages to parents or on the days she went missing.I'm sure if he were grooming her that there is a slew of messages between kayleigh and LH in the lead up to her disappearance. Do we know for sure that this is the first time shed met LH?

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[RainbowSkies]

Wow, 85 guests looking at this thread right now, please come and join us!

:discuss:

I've been following the thread for while, but I've been unable to comment as I've been waiting for my account to be activated... also didn't wish to break any rules with what I post.

This is a very local case to me, so I am familiar with all the areas (sorry wanted to help before when you were discussing location but I just couldn't comment). The whole community is very saddened by Kayleigh's death.

This is the bit I am not sure I can post about: Most people of a similar age to the accused will have gone to school with SB and LH due to how small our community is (me included). Therefore a lot of us local people have mutual friends and / or knew the two in question. Therefore what I post could perhaps be slightly unbiased due to knowing them or knowing of them. Is this the case?

 

[JerricaBenton]

My theory, for what its worth ... LH groomed Kayleigh and arranged for them to spend the night together (13th) at the house SB and LH shared. All was fine that night, and Kayleigh phoned her parent to keep up the pretence of staying at her friends house. LH had to nip out, maybe for milk or ciggerettes or something, leaving Kayleigh with SB. Thats when he raped & murdered her, who knows why. That would mean there was CCTV footage of LH in a shop at the time she is believed to be murdered etc. and why he has no charges relating to the murder. When he returns home, SB just says Kayleigh took off home & he wouldnt think much more of it.

 

[JerricaBenton]

I've been following the thread for while, but I've been unable to comment as I've been waiting for my account to be activated... also didn't wish to break any rules with what I post.

This is a very local case to me, so I am familiar with all the areas (sorry wanted to help before when you were discussing location but I just couldn't comment). The whole community is very saddened by Kayleigh's death.

This is the bit I am not sure I can post about: Most people of a similar age to the accused will have gone to school with SB and LH due to how small our community is (me included). Therefore a lot of us local people have mutual friends and / or knew the two in question. Therefore what I post could perhaps be slightly unbiased due to knowing them or knowing of them. Is this the case?

I think you can be verified as a local and can then post what you know? Speak to an admin

 

[mrazda71]

I'm doubtful that Luke took KayLeigh back to HIS home to stay the night so I'm wondering if Luke could've arranged to stay at Stephen's with KayLeigh. Then in the morning KayLeigh and Luke both left - KayLeigh calls her parents to let them know she's fine. Luke goes back to HIS home - Stephen then follows Kayleigh and commits the crime. OR maybe Luke left KayLeigh at Stephen's house (maybe Stephen said he'd give her a lift home/to friends house) but as Luke hasn't been charged with ANYTHING relating to Kayleigh's death then I would assume he had a solid alibi - such as being at home with parents etc ...

 

[Edinlass]

I'm doubtful that Luke took KayLeigh back to HIS home to stay the night so I'm wondering if Luke could've arranged to stay at Stephen's with KayLeigh. Then in the morning KayLeigh and Luke both left - KayLeigh calls her parents to let them know she's fine. Luke goes back to HIS home - Stephen then follows Kayleigh and commits the crime. OR maybe Luke left KayLeigh at Stephen's house (maybe Stephen said he'd give her a lift home/to friends house) but as Luke hasn't been charged with ANYTHING relating to Kayleigh's death then I would assume he had a solid alibi - such as being at home with parents etc ...

Yup, my thoughts too.