Found Deceased UK - Lindsay Birbeck, 47, Accrington, 12 Aug 2019 *Arrest* #4

[Niner]

The only information he's offered is in his prepared statement and it doesn't say where he was. The police interviewed him 11 times and he answered no comment.

Oh okay - thanks!

 

[Jartykarate]

So not like here where LE asks for an alibi? You don't have to tell police in the U.K. "where" you've been?

That’s correct.

 

[ShamelessObserver]

IMO he's guilty. It doesn't make sense that she has no defensive injuries though, or finger nail injuries.

 

[Alyce]

From Judge's summing up

He ( MF ) said none of the four pairs of trainers seized by police had a blue flash logo or were Airwalk trainers which Ms Braithwaite described.

If he had 4 pairs then very likely he could have had 5 pairs and one was disposed of after the killing ?

 

[Becky53]

Just reading that on the Lancs Telegraph feed.

Far as I remember, the cctv sighting comes from the bungalow next to Whitakers Arms,and that is at 328 or 326 Burnley Road

could it be a typo ?

I am just editing this as I can't see the numbers to be sure which number it is...but it is definitely in the 300's not the 200's

Bungalows are 326 and 328. Maybe last footage “was” from 256 but they used footage from bungalow at 328 as it was clearer footage of her for still photos. JMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

From Judge's summing up

He ( MF ) said none of the four pairs of trainers seized by police had a blue flash logo or were Airwalk trainers which Ms Braithwaite described.

If he had 4 pairs then very likely he could have had 5 pairs and one was disposed of after the killing ?

Definitely. This proves nothing in my mind

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IMO he's guilty. It doesn't make sense that she has no defensive injuries though, or finger nail injuries.

It does if she was taken by surprise and overwhelmed.

A surprise attack from the rear with the correct technique could render someone unconscious very quickly.

 

[Becky53]

From Judge's summing up

He ( MF ) said none of the four pairs of trainers seized by police had a blue flash logo or were Airwalk trainers which Ms Braithwaite described.

If he had 4 pairs then very likely he could have had 5 pairs and one was disposed of after the killing ?

Totally agree - and they were disposed of along with Lindsay’s missing clothes.

 

[Sarahlou]

I think he is guilty. But I think the jury will be pretty divided on this. I think they will be out a long time.

 

[Sera]

From Judge's summing up

He ( MF ) said none of the four pairs of trainers seized by police had a blue flash logo or were Airwalk trainers which Ms Braithwaite described.

If he had 4 pairs then very likely he could have had 5 pairs and one was disposed of after the killing ?

One of the many, many things that confuses me about this case is the disappearing evidence and trying to decide whether the defendant did or did not have an understanding of forensic evidence. E.g. They recovered the tracksuit from his home but (if he did actually own any trainers with a "flash" logo) the trainers have disappeared. Also they found Lindsay's shoes but not her clothing. Nor did they find her phone etc yet the bin seemed to have been thoroughly cleaned. It's all just so strange. It's as though the defendant went to great lengths to dispose of/clean certain things to prevent DNA evidence but then was really sloppy with other things (keeping the plastic sheeting at his home etc). It just baffles me.

 

[Alyce]

Bungalows are 326 and 328. Maybe last footage “was” from 256 but they used footage from bungalow at 328 as it was clearer footage of her for still photos. JMO

Thanks Becky.

I have just had a scroll along Burnley Road and #256 is a mid terrace, some ways before you get to Peel Park Avenue ( if walking from the direction of Whitakers pub ). It also does not appear to have any cctv.

#240 and # 238 are the houses at either corner of Peel Park Avenue.

Based on the above, I think the 256 reference is a typo.

 

[Alyce]

My take on the grey tracksuit is the same as the trainers. If he had - at least - 4 pairs of trainers, then it is not beyond belief that he had more than one, identical, grey tracksuit.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

One of the many, many things that confuses me about this case is the disappearing evidence and trying to decide whether the defendant did or did not have an understanding of forensic evidence. E.g. They recovered the tracksuit from his home but (if he did actually own any trainers with a "flash" logo) the trainers have disappeared. Also they found Lindsay's shoes but not her clothing. Nor did they find her phone etc yet the bin seemed to have been thoroughly cleaned. It's all just so strange. It's as though the defendant went to great lengths to dispose of/clean certain things to prevent DNA evidence but then was really sloppy with other things (keeping the plastic sheeting at his home etc). It just baffles me.

Just a thought concerning the defendants clothing.

He has ASD and he may have routine including wearing the same clothes.

It is possible that he had more than one set of identical clothing. One of those sets may also have been disposed of!

 

[Alyce]

Judge's summing up concluded
The Judge has now finished her summing up.

The jury have been sent away until 10.30am tomorrow morning.

They will be sent out to consider their verdicts shortly afterwards.

 

[Little Nicki]

That’s extremely underweight IMO - wonder if it’s a typo?
I’d have put her around the 10 stone from the still of her and the photographs.

I agree, I am only 5ft 3 and weigh around 8 stone and I am petite. To the point I wear kids size clothes regularly. Just doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Sera]

My take on the grey tracksuit is the same as the trainers. If he had - at least - 4 pairs of trainers, then it is not beyond belief that he had more than one, identical, grey tracksuit.

It is possible that he had more than one set of identical clothing. One of those sets may also have been disposed of!

Thanks guys, I do understand your point. I guess what I'm getting at is that he seems to have cleaned the wheelie bin, tried to dispose of Lindsay's shoes, disposed of her clothing and phone etc, basically tried to get rid of most things linking him to her. Yet he just kept the "indistinguishable" plastic sheeting lying around in his house and got caught on a ton of CCTV. I kind of feel as though he thought he was going to get away with it and in his mind he'd been really careful and smart but he'd actually been really sloppy and left a bunch of evidence lying around (thankfully, or he may have never been caught!).

 

[Alyce]

I agree, I am only 5ft 3 and weigh around 8 stone and I am petite. To the point I wear kids size clothes regularly. Just doesn't sound right to me.

Quite a few typos and some questionable grammar in both of the reports today, so it would not surprise me if they got the figure wrong - hopefully it is just the journos mis typing and not the Court recording an incorrect figure in the testimony as that might - wrongly - influence the Jury.

 

[Jartykarate]

Judge's summing up concluded
The Judge has now finished her summing up.

The jury have been sent away until 10.30am tomorrow morning.

They will be sent out to consider their verdicts shortly afterwards.

The judges summing up was totally impartial, I’ve never seem so many “it’s up to you to decide”’s in one place.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks Becky.

I have just had a scroll along Burnley Road and #256 is a mid terrace, some ways before you get to Peel Park Avenue ( if walking from the direction of Whitakers pub ). It also does not appear to have any cctv.

#240 and # 238 are the houses at either corner of Peel Park Avenue.

Based on the above, I think the 256 reference is a typo.

The assertion that LB walked up Peel Park Avenue and not the path alongside Whittakers is based on CCTV images beyond the Whittakers Arms but before reaching Peel Peel Avenue.

The distance from LB's H/A to the junction of Burnley Road and Peel Park Avenue is 175m +/- 10m according to OS Mapping.

CCTV images from Burnley Road after Peel Park Ave did not pick up LB nor did a bus travelling on Burnley Road.

I believe that the report of CCTV from 256 Burnley Road is correct.

 

[Jartykarate]

The assertion that LB walked up Peel Park Avenue and not the path alongside Whittakers is based on CCTV images beyond the Whittakers Arms but before reaching Peel Peel Avenue.

The distance from LB's H/A to the junction of Burnley Road and Peel Park Avenue is 175m +/- 10m according to OS Mapping.

CCTV images from Burnley Road after Peel Park Ave did not pick up LB nor did a bus travelling on Burnley Road.

I believe that the report of CCTV from 256 Burnley Road is correct.

Seeing as the prosecution and defence seemed to agree on the route she took this is probably correct.

"Therefore the police concluded that she turned left down Peel Park Avenue and that she was heading onto the Coppice.

"The defence say you can't be sure she went all the way down there and got onto the Coppice.