Have just quickly caught up on this whole thread so have skimmed some of it. Therefore, apologies if what I’m about to post has already been considered, but just a couple of thoughts in relation to a hire car possibility and the separate arrest for indecent exposure:
1) Re “hire care” - rather than hiring a car in an attempt to make traceability back to him more difficult (because it’s probably not), is it possible he hired a car for its superior advantages/use in some way - ie could we be getting hung up on a possible clumsy use of “hire car” when it might have been a “hire vehicle”, like a 4x4 or van for instance that may make both detaining SE easier in the back and getting across rural land later easier.
2) Alternatively, could it indeed refer to a lease car - might he get some allowance to long term hire/lease a vehicle to use to commute from Deal to Westminster and he still has his own family car(s) because he’s not allowed to use this other car for personal use at weekends, etc. I know we’re in a pandemic, but personal use only might explain the low mileage on the Seat in the last year or so. This might then explain why he was in this vehicle if he was on his way home from work.
3) If it was a hire vehicle of some sort, then could the wife have driven him to/home from wherever he returned the hire car to and this is why she is suspected of assisting him. She may have been oblivious, but the police may need to arrest her to determine this.
4) Similarly to placing too much focus on “hire” and “car”, could the indecent exposure arrest relate to digital indecent exposure - ie harassing people (presumably women, given SE) online/SM with unsolicited pictures of himself and this was uncovered by police shortly after his arrest when checking his phone for evidence and/or the micro SD card they took from his house. This may explain the relative swiftness with adding that arrest feature and not needing doing so to have relied on another person coming forward so quickly (remember, the general public/other victims may not have known WC’s identity in this case as quickly as we did). Any VIs know if SM/messaging of private parts counts as indecent exposure if unsolicited? I’m aware a counter to my theory above is, without someone coming forward to accuse, LE cannot assume they were unsolicited but just a thought.
All MOO.