I feel like we need statement from Humberside Police. At least to give is a hint...
I was thinking about this earlier today. There has to be hope. Hope for Justice for Libby.I thought there maybe some news after the poor Libby's funeral.
But the longer it goes on, the more I think there less likely to be any sort of conviction.
There must be a reason they haven't said more about this. I believe they have said it was murder, but l'm wondering if they don't have enough evidence. Will there be an inquest does anyone know?
He may not have been charged yet but neither have police said he is no longer a suspect.
When they did arrest him after his trial for other offences it was on suspicion of murder not abduction or manslaughter. Surely they'd have to give good grounds to the courts to use that term. Does that mean proving motive to harm?
He was charged with 13 offences for which there was very good evidence. I would be very surprised if that was all he'd done and think it more likely they were the just cases where that evidence had been gathered quickly before it was lost.
Given the fact the police don't need to keep him off the streets could they be collating a larger case?
If he'd continued to plead not guilty and gone to trial each of those 13 offences would have backed up the others wouldn't it? A single CCTV image for example of one squat, wobbly guy waving his Willy might not reach the level of beyond reasonable doubt but similar image + forensics makes the first more likely etc.
So maybe there are other charges to bring alongside murder? Maybe Libby wasn't his first intended victim?Maybe he's parked by spidercam before and followed luckier students? Maybe there is footage of him elsewhere following women? Maybe they were / are waiting for stuff from York and Poland h(may not have had a criminal record but there might be social work reports or cautions or even victims from cases that didn't get to trial)?.
We don't knew we just have to hope because a judge deemed him dangerous and that must mean something.
He may not have been charged yet but neither have police said he is no longer a suspect.
When they did arrest him after his trial for other offences it was on suspicion of murder not abduction or manslaughter. Surely they'd have to give good grounds to the courts to use that term. Does that mean proving motive to harm?
He was charged with 13 offences for which there was very good evidence. I would be very surprised if that was all he'd done and think it more likely they were the just cases where that evidence had been gathered quickly before it was lost.
Given the fact the police don't need to keep him off the streets could they be collating a larger case?
If he'd continued to plead not guilty and gone to trial each of those 13 offences would have backed up the others wouldn't it? A single CCTV image for example of one squat, wobbly guy waving his Willy might not reach the level of beyond reasonable doubt but similar image + forensics makes the first more likely etc.
So maybe there are other charges to bring alongside murder? Maybe Libby wasn't his first intended victim?Maybe he's parked by spidercam before and followed luckier students? Maybe there is footage of him elsewhere following women? Maybe they were / are waiting for stuff from York and Poland h(may not have had a criminal record but there might be social work reports or cautions or even victims from cases that didn't get to trial)?.
We don't knew we just have to hope because a judge deemed him dangerous and that must mean something.
Great comment as always. I have to say it stuck with me too the comme t the judge made about how he deems him very dangerous. And tbh lots of serial killers began with voyerism and burglaries... its actually really scary to even imagine all the things he already pleaded guilty to...let alone what we dont know about yet
I didn't knew you could give consecutive sentences before that court case. I'm very glad they are an option tho because looking at the allowed sentences for the individual crimes the law doesn't seem to take them seriously.The final hearing, sentencing and the Judge's comments all struck me as odd. To give such a heavy sentence based on the possibility that he may escalate based on his behaviour, seemed to me almost like they were indirectly saying we 'know he has already harmed.' The Police seemed to be certain he was involved with Libby's death. Maybe this was them reflecting that all prosecuting parties were privately and unofficially sure of his guilt, but also sure that they did not have the necessary evidence to fulfil a court process, and gave a sentence reflecting that. It's like when the teachers know for certain it was that kid, but they can't pin it on him, so he gets a term's worth of detentions for some missing homework and being late.
NB: I am still of the opinion that he dumped her body into the Humber directly rather than into the Hull at the boathouse steps. I know it took quite a long time to be discovered in the Humber, but for me there are too many twists and turns, too many snags along the banks, and too many eyes on the river for a body to make it to the mouth of the Humber... at that time the bank was being worked on, in two places I think, and there are two elevated purpose built viewing bridge control rooms across the river between there and the Humber.
I didn't knew you could give consecutive sentences before that court case. I'm very glad they are an option tho because looking at the allowed sentences for the individual crimes the law doesn't seem to take them seriously.
My opinion agrees with yours about them being sure of his guilt. Everything about him has been odd. There were reporting restrictions in place for part of the summing up for example and hasn't appealed which I thought he'd do.
Is a period of reporting restrictions normal at a sentencing summing up? He'd already pleaded guilty so nothing that was said could prejudice that case. I found that really odd. Could it be because it could prejudice another?
I also tend to share your opinion that he didn't leave her body in the river in the park. Partly because I think she'd have been found far earlier given the intense police search and the way it meanders. Partly because of the length of time they kept her body and the use of 'search experts'. I wondered if they were trying to track where it could have been?
That does raise lots of questions tho. Where could he have taken her that wouldn't leave a CCTV trail? Is it possible he borrowed some one else's car to move her? Is someone else involved?
Does anyone know if anyone ever came forward from the Croda CCTV?
As far as im aware reporting restrictions are normal in these type of case, as victims of sexual crimes are entitled to lifelong annonimity (sp?, sorry). Imo not too much to be read into that.
I have personally always thought Libby entered the park with him and he left alone, anything else is far too convoluted in my mind and would have left more evidence that would help them tie the case up.
Thanks for that. Wasn't sure if reporting restrictions were usual or not.As far as im aware reporting restrictions are normal in these type of case, as victims of sexual crimes are entitled to lifelong annonimity (sp?, sorry). Imo not too much to be read into that.
I have personally always thought Libby entered the park with him and he left alone, anything else is far too convoluted in my mind and would have left more evidence that would help them tie the case up.