because opportunity happened and he couldn't resist
I'm not convinced he was looking for someone to rape (having sex with) it was impulsive behaviour not planned
because opportunity happened and he couldn't resist
I'm not convinced he was looking for someone to rape (having sex with) it was impulsive behaviour not planned
yes, for woman to masturbate of front of her that's what he said ,that's what he was looking for and it wasn't impulsive.But he was driving around for hours prowling for a woman (he has admitted this) there is nothing impulsive about that, opportunistic yes but not impulsive.
You asked this before and I gave you the reference.Having thought the CCTV from the yeast factory showed the car arriving- and then searching and searching for something to confirm that- I couldn’t find anything. I’m not sure what was captured on the yeast factory, or which CCTV showed them arriving and leaving the park (I now think it was just a street camera caught them arriving very close to where they parked up)
Well like I say I disagree and I respect your opinion so not going to go into it any further as I dont want to derail the thread for others.yes, for woman to masturbate of front of her that's what he said ,that's what he was looking for and it wasn't impulsive but rape (sex) was ,he decided use her because opportunity happened but not because he planned rape someone that night(or as other suggested he was planned for days watching(studying ) river tide )
No they didn't. I believe there was an area but this one was families and students. I'm getting a feeling consent wasn't his thingI was wondering if he might have been looking for a sex worker - but i don't know if any worked around there
But you see how late he was out - so that suggests he was looking for vulnerable people IMO
But why drive around for four hours? Why didn't he do his usual trick of peering through windows or breaking into houses, if he simply wanted to masterbate watching a women. Why did he need this women to be on the streets? Why did he need his car? He lived close by? Why didn't he just masterbate at libby at the endsleigh centre or when they were on Haworth? He knew the area around the park so why drive down a dead end?.
Oh I am loving the prosecutor right now. Did you find street lamps or bollards sexually attractive.
Bet PR is squirming! Hope he has some rage filled outburst and his cover story of good samaritan is blown.
Me too. So many rapes are unreported.
really?I don’t think any of us can say with 100% certainty that was his intention that night. It is opportunistic like most rape crimes.
Basically his crimes heightened that night, it sometimes happens gradually as is the case here (allegedly) or immediately (Aaron Campbell)...
Unfortunately, rape is a rife crime. Apparently, there are approx 85,000 rapes a year in the UK yet only around 2000 convictions. I suspect most rapists think they will get away with it and just carry on about their normal life. It is a sad but true fact.
I can only see evidence so far to suggest that PR is a rapist. I don't think that it is that surprising that he carried on behaving the way he always has done after raping someone. Enjoying his sexual high and prowling the streets for more.
I feel extremely sad for Libby and her friends and family, but as this trial goes on, I really do think he left her at the park and she ended up in the river herself. He is still responsible for her death in my eyes but I don't think he murdered her. This is all based on what has been reported. As I have said previously, I hope there is more evidence that we haven't seen that will change this.
Yes I agreeI also thought this at the time, how many times has he waited for young drunk girls wandering the streets alone after a night out and they’ve been too drunk to remember or to report?
You’d hope that they can come forward and report once his face is splashed everywhere if that is the case
Absolutely agreeAside from the fact that , as best as he is allowed to say, in line with science and the law, the experienced and appropriately qualified Home Office Pathologist Dr Lyall states "in Libby’s case the findings were not typical of drowning and Libby’s body showed no changes typical of hypothermia." and "asphyxia could not be excluded as “it is quite possible to kill somebody in this way without leaving significant injury and the absence of certain injuries cannot exclude this as a potential mechanism of death in Libby’s case.".
If she put herself in, obviously whilst alive, there would likely, or in all probablility, be signs of drowning. The greater probability of the evidence suggests she didn't drown and was therefore dead before going into the water...and as the further snippet confirms no physical evidence of hypothermia it is unlikely she was laid or walking around, alive, for much more time than that she was last seen. It is quite possible she was laid dead of course.
The pathologist has given it as best as he is able to whilst staying within the boundaries of the court and he would not say those things at all lightly...
Aside from the fact that , as best as he is allowed to say, in line with science and the law, the experienced and appropriately qualified Home Office Pathologist Dr Lyall states "in Libby’s case the findings were not typical of drowning and Libby’s body showed no changes typical of hypothermia." and "asphyxia could not be excluded as “it is quite possible to kill somebody in this way without leaving significant injury and the absence of certain injuries cannot exclude this as a potential mechanism of death in Libby’s case.".
If she put herself in, obviously whilst alive, there would likely, or in all probablility, be signs of drowning. The greater probability of the evidence suggests she didn't drown and was therefore dead before going into the water...and as the further snippet confirms no physical evidence of hypothermia it is unlikely she was laid or walking around, alive, for much more time than that she was last seen. It is quite possible she was laid dead of course.
The pathologist has given it as best as he is able to whilst staying within the boundaries of the court and he would not say those things at all lightly...
I absolutely agree. Subtle differences in wording speak volumesAside from the fact that , as best as he is allowed to say, in line with science and the law, the experienced and appropriately qualified Home Office Pathologist Dr Lyall states "in Libby’s case the findings were not typical of drowning and Libby’s body showed no changes typical of hypothermia." and "asphyxia could not be excluded as “it is quite possible to kill somebody in this way without leaving significant injury and the absence of certain injuries cannot exclude this as a potential mechanism of death in Libby’s case.".
If she put herself in, obviously whilst alive, there would likely, or in all probablility, be signs of drowning. The greater probability of the evidence suggests she didn't drown and was therefore dead before going into the water...and as the further snippet confirms no physical evidence of hypothermia it is unlikely she was laid or walking around, alive, for much more time than that she was last seen. It is quite possible she was laid dead of course.
The pathologist has given it as best as he is able to whilst staying within the boundaries of the court and he would not say those things at all lightly...
Apologies to all - apparently my posts have been reported for victim shaming. This was so far from my intention.
I thought it was ok to discuss testimony and whether or not it could be true.