Taken me all night to get caught up, whew! Didn't see the unrelated charges coming but good move, keeps him in prison and out of trouble while they find more evidence.
At first I'd wondered if they'd got the right guy as he seemed pretty normal, but first the "she made a move on him" story from the family, and now these charges... yeah, I'd now be very surprised if he was NOT responsible. Put it this way, he'd have to be the most unlucky guy on earth, to have been a good samaritan and offer a lift to a drunk girl, who then flung herself at him and ran off, only to then disappear completely... and THEN to be identified as a flasher/voyeur in addition! It's not impossible that he isn't responsible for all of that, so I'll keep a slightly open mind, but there's quite a bit pointing towards him now.
I'm a bit confused about the spider web video though; with the Daily Mail (I think?) quote that it didn't show the same person as was being interviewed. I'm no good at identifying bits of partially obscured video so really can't tell what's going on there anyway (I've read the interpretations on here as a general guide but can't see any of it myself, it's just a blurry movement), but if it's not PR, then why was it released? For that matter, if it IS him, I wonder what purpose it served, given they already had him in for questioning by then. Assuming it's not just the media releasing it without police input, I guess (would they do that, when it's potential evidence)? Maybe they want to find the other car and cyclist as potential witnesses, but I don't recall seeing any direct appeals to them.