Am I right in assuming that positive identification by a witness is not enough to charge someone with voyeurism? Did someone post an article about this a while back that I can’t find now?
To go back to basics and facts. P has been charged with voyeurism, outraging public decency, theft. And he hasn’t admitted to a single charge. With that in mind, I find it very difficult to believe that he would admit to being in the park with Libby that night or that there is any reason why he would specifically single out a bench for the police.
Also, I have seen photographs in MSN of the police searching 2 separate park areas. Both near a playground/skate park/ pond and both flanked by benches.
Benches. There’s a lot of them in this story. Coincidence? And the voyeurism - how is that being proved beyond eyewitness statements? I don’t believe P is talking at all to police if he is denying charges of sexual indecency let alone abduction accusations. This leads me to wonder if it is possible that he has been videoing his crimes and this is what has led police to convict him post house raid. Maybe they have seem a video of something happening on a bench in a dark park, but they aren’t sure which one it is. Who knows. But I feel sure that whatever led them to forensically examine the benches, it was not P who pointed them in that direction. Just my opinion...
Edit: I am no legal expert, but to me this suggests that for a voyeurism
charge, there needs to be a recording.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/the-sex-crime-of-voyeurism-23535
So what else has he recorded and on what? Did he record something in the park and upload a clip, police are searching for phone for full version to prove location and people involved? Mind boggles, but I feel that there must be an camera or some sort of electronic recording to lead police to be searching every day in the park and I can’t imagine CCTV would pinpoint a bench.