JosieJo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2018
- Messages
- 3,259
- Reaction score
- 22,499
The absence of searches would similarly infer he was in no doubt that it was rape
Why ?
The absence of searches would similarly infer he was in no doubt that it was rape
Why ?
...her ending up near the river has no time limit as the prosecco does ..a tight one.
She could have wandered around the park for hours before having to reach the water in theory
...her ending up near the river has no time limit as the prosecco does ..a tight one.
She could have wandered around the park for hours before having to reach the water in theory
I know these are extreme cases but Ted Bundy and Dennis Radar started out with Voyeurism. PR has been doing this for at least 18 months. We do not know of anything prior but it could have started much sooner. I do not think it is unreasonable to think rape and murder were PR’s next steps. I am grateful for the invention of CCTV because it may help prevent serial rapist and killers from going on for years and years leaving a trail of victims. MOO
EDTSex was a big part of his life and "hobbies" ..he was a vile pervert..he Googled sex regularly.. most people would know without googling ..I can just claim it was consensual
Murder and bodies in the river and dna and tides etc ...would require googling
I take your point and should have clarified in my post that you would need to ask not only if Libby could make it from the road to the river, but do so fairly quickly...she'd have to be fairly quick to get there in time to start screaming by the time the witnesses report hearing them...max 11 minutes, minimum 0 minutes depending on which witness you go with. In other words she does have as you say all night to fall in the river but she she doesn't have long to get near it and start screaming.
Not necessarily.
That would be like saying no murders or rapes ever took place since time began, before the invention of the internet.
Respectfully snipped by me.
....left her safe and well, she must have just fallen in the river, that's her bad luck, hardly his fault, he's not her dad, he's not responsible for her,
I wonder if PR said something very similar to his barrister when discussing his case.
He didn't raise that as an option in court and neither did his defence. In fact he denies it.Also picking up on one of MrJitty's recent posts, for the defence to put it to the jury, you've heard my client's evidence, firstly the sex was initiated by Libby, secondly there is insufficient evidence to conclude he didn't reasonably believe she had the legal capacity to consent, thirdly the sex took place by the side of the road....but on the other hand if you conclude that's a complete pack of lies try this one, he raped her in the park but left her safe and well, she must have just fallen in the river, that's her bad luck, hardly his fault, he's not her dad, he's not responsible for her, you might feel him a tad ungallant, or even morally reprehensible, but that doesn't make him a murderer. How well is that going to go down? Moreso as his evidence is the polar opposite to this I do wonder whether as a matter of law they are permitted to advance this totally unsupported speculation, and whether the jury are permitted to consider it?
The river was there. Why would he need to research it?Exactly this ... likely we will never know the sequence of events whatever the verdict...either way he is going to prison for a very long time
I agree I totally forgot its very unusual for there to be no Internet searches on death or water etc ...most cases even with very bright people show this
We have no idea though if she could still wander around not screaming
I think maybe 'not possible' should be replaced by 'not likely'. Only the jury know how impressive - or not - he was when giving his evidence.I suppose the only questions the jury should be asking imo is
Have prosecution proven so that they are sure he killed her by his own hands or putting her in or very near the river
Has it been proven that his version is not possible...any other scenarios are not allowed to be considered
I wonder if the reason PR stated that LS walked off carrying her knickers, was in order to give credence to his earlier story that she took them off herself in the car, and threw them at him? In other words, PR is bolstering the idea that she initiated the sex, it was consensual, and since she walked off carrying her knickers, she could have later put them on again herself since the trial has been told she was found wearing them.Yes I realise that, but realistically we don’t know so he could have, but may not have- but for some reason he tells people (even before LS body is recovered) that she removed her underwear.
Yep. That's my issue. At 12.15 PR says he's at the side of the road with LibbyTrue, I'm just saying the screaming occurred 12.15 earliest (SA), 12.30ish (Claremont residents) latest. PR drove off at 12.19 and says he left Libby outside the park. So she had to get way up the park to where the screaming occurred inside a maximum of 11 minutes ish.
The river was there. Why would he need to research it?
I know these are extreme cases but Ted Bundy and Dennis Radar started out with Voyeurism. PR has been doing this for at least 18 months. We do not know of anything prior but it could have started much sooner. I do not think it is unreasonable to think rape and murder were PR’s next steps. MOO