DanCJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 721
With the news that Helen’s killer is due to be released (already on day release) soon, I couldn’t help but think of similarities. Mum 'shocked' to see killer out in public
Helen’s body has never been found and her mam is campaigning for Helen’s law (find it on change.org), that a killer should never be released unless they give up the location.
What if Libby is sadly never found ?
Helen’s killer was convicted due to her earring being found in his car.
Say LE have Libby’s hair/scent in the car and PR’s admittance that she was in the car, could this similarly be enough to get a conviction ?
Even if he says she left his car unharmed, surely the evidence alongside the fact that Libby has not been found would be enough to at least get a trial?
I’m not sure what Helen’s killer said regarding the earring but I can only assume he tried to give a plausible explanation for her being in his car too, of course you would, right ? So assuming LE has other further evidence (cctv, forensics ..), like Helen’s case, there may be hope of a conviction without a body ?
ETA: after further research into the case, Helen’s was blood found in the car and his home so assuming (maybe wrongly) that we don’t have this level of evidence (PR would be charged?) much harder to get a conviction.
I read this story recently too. Thank god for forensics finally making its appearance for a case like this. IS still maintains his innocence after all these years, claiming he had been set up. When you read the damning evidence they had against him, his version of events are absolute farcical... that ridiculous you wouldn't even bother trying to peddle it to anyone. I totally agree with Helen's Law too. I'd imagine he'd want to withhold Helens location too, either what he did was so heinous or that she isn't the only one there.