Found Deceased UK - Lindsay Birbeck, 47, Accrington, 12 Aug 2019 *Arrest* #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #161
With regard to the cutting off of the soles of the shoes, could it be that in his mind he thought that tracks of shoes can be quite distinctive, and therefore tie the discovery of the body in the cemetery back to the actual murder site (the coppice?)

He may have thought it would put the police off from discovering the actual murder site based on footprints of the victim, and so avoiding further evidence being found.

After death a body can swell quite considerably so he couldn’t just take the shoes off without attempting to remove the soles to give more movement.

Maybe he was then disturbed doing this and just stuffed them in a bag and threw them in the skip.
 
  • #162
I'm not quite sure how to write this, so bear with me while I try and get started.

I can't join in with any of the theorizing because it's been reported that the youth has autism.

Everything I see posters theorizing seems to be around the thinking of someone not on the spectrum. When apparently he is. We have no idea of his range of autism, all I can tell is that he has speech. That's it.

I'm trying to recall some of the things that stand out to me.

1. Him spending so much time alone on the coppice being unusual. No it isn't. All of the male youths I with with spend nearly all of their time alone, having as little communication with other people as possible. Some spending all of their time on a computer, and some spending equal time on a computer and outdoors. Whether on a computer or outdoors, their thoughts are completely solitary. For those that have speech, even at times when they are having conversation with others, the other party has to follow the conversation as it plays out in the mind of the person with autism, or they can't continue with the conversation.

(I mean no disrespect by using 'they', by 'they' I am referring to my recollection of each time I have supported young males who have autism, in a criminal investigation).

2. Trying to rationalise his actions. A person with autism has their own 'manual' that they live by. By 'manual', this is how I refer to their understanding of how life should be. You can't tell them any different. They will just think you are wrong. Autism is very matter-of-fact and most people on the spectrum don't have the capacity to accept that there are different ways for different people. Eg. A person who is noisy is wrong. They will not accept that that person is happy, or excited in that moment. They are just a bad person for being noisy. Noise is not acceptable according to the manual. This is one example, but it applies to their thinking about all aspects of human behaviour. You can add to their manual, but you can't change it.

3. Jonty Bravery being used as an example of a person with autism understanding the consequences of his actions, because he had reportedly said he wanted to kill someone, and had specifically said that he wanted to push someone off a high structure. This only shows that he had a plan of action. He knew what actions he wanted to carry out, but there is nothing that's been reported on that case which indicates he had any connections to the emotions or consequences on victims. Which most people on the autistic spectrum wouldn't.

4. It's very difficult to question someone with autism. You know the questions that you looking for answers to, but they don't understand why you are questioning, and due to the point I made about a conversation having to follow their own thoughts, don't cope well with questioning. They don't understand why you would be asking, because of course, the logical answers are all in the 'manual', which as far as they are concerned, we know. They would want to escape from a situation of being questioned. It's about one of the most anxiety- inducing situations they face.

To try and cover these points with a specific example, I'll tell you about the most recent arrest I have been part of. A young man with autism I know very well. Functions fairly independently. I have as good a relationship with him as anyone. He goes out for hours during the night. I don't know what he's doing for these hours. In the morning he'll show me pictures of the moon, pictures of car lights in the fog. So I can see some of the places he's been. I'll ask him what was he doing out late at night and he'll say something like "I mustn't cross the road when it's foggy Lucy because the car might not see me and bang" and then he'll walk away, because I've asked a question. He will go out for hours during the day and I know he is spending a lot of time in the bushes at the primary school. He tells me that there are often balls in the bushes and that's why he goes there, to look for them. He'll spend hours in there watching the children. You can imagine what people think when they see this, and he doesn't 'look' disabled. I ask him if he has a girlfriend and he says when he has a wife he will let me know, that there are lots of girls in the primary school and lots of girls in the college and who knows which one will be his wife. I try to explain to him that he mustn't look at the girls in the school because he is a man, so they can't be his wife, but again he walks away, as my opinion is nonsense according to his manual.

I know this has no relevance to this case, I just thought maybe for some who might not have been in a position to have experience of autism it might be a little helpful. I still can't give any answers though because each person has slight variations, and as I said, all I think I know about the person you are discussing in this case is that he has autism and speech. All the wondering about why he cut her shoes, you'll never come up with an answer. Because you're looking at it from your reasoning. He will have, what is to him, the perfectly logical answer as to why he did that, but I can guarantee you that no matter how long you think about it you are NEVER going to come up with what that is. Unless he tells us. It's in the manual. The one we don't have.

I notice that the other person on this forum who I know has a good insight into autism has gone very quiet also, they've probably been feeling as up against a wall as I have.
Thank you so much for this post!
 
  • #163
Accrington
Accrington BB5 2DQ
خرائط ‪Google‬‏‏

Might be better. U need to use satellite to view. Not normal maps

It's not working for me.

Possibly the only way of doing it is to print screen the map, paste into some kind of photo editing software, place your markers, save and then upload to an image hosting site and then post a 'public link'?

Unless someone knows different?
 
  • #164
It's working for me. If you click a wee symbol near top right it gives you the option to view satellite.

See the line you can see on the maps- is that a fence line? I thought it might have been a footpath. If it's not a footpath - is there a footpath?

So that spot could be the murder scene or thereabouts. If we believe the red jacket was hers.
 
  • #165
How do you know it wasn’t? The ‘jacket’ was seen by a dog walker in the area shortly after Lindsay was there. She wasn’t missing at that point.
When they realised she was missing and the possible link it was reported, and the area searched.

I wouldn't class a couple of volunteers jumping over a fence and having a look as being investigated properly. Especially as at that stage it was already a 'high risk' missing persons enquiry.
 
  • #166
It's working for me. If you click a wee symbol near top right it gives you the option to view satellite.

See the line you can see on the maps- is that a fence line? I thought it might have been a footpath. If it's not a footpath - is there a footpath?

So that spot could be the murder scene or thereabouts. If we believe the red jacket was hers.


The line is a footpath through the coppice. Where the marker is is where I was walking and I think this is where the dog walker was who seen Lindsay's coat. Could be wrong because I can't find the post with the mark on.
 
  • #167
Pink line is footpaths. The arrow I put is where I think the lady has seen the coat. From pink line with red dot to where coat was. Also the distance is not as far as it looks. All paths out lead to Burnley road.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200301_205548.jpg
    Screenshot_20200301_205548.jpg
    125.4 KB · Views: 114
  • #168
It really makes you want to go there yourself to get a better idea of the place doesn't it? (though possibly not alone :eek:)

As I have a picture of a map in my head, but it might be very different in reality. I want to find out for sure.
I think I'll brave it and go round there this week
 
  • #169
Pink line is footpaths. The arrow I put is where I think the lady has seen the coat. From pink line with red dot to where coat was. Also the distance is not as far as it looks. All paths out lead to Burnley road.

Presumably though you can access the same area from the road marked Ave Parade, past what looks like s bowling club?

Just thinking of the sort of things the defence will ask.
 
  • #170
I’m interested about the phone.

Apparently at the time she went missing it was stated her phone was flat.
We know this isn’t true as she recieved but didn’t open a message at 4:30. Unusually the police haven’t stated when it was switched off.

I’m wondering if they know when, and approximately where it was switched off, and that will come as part of the evidence.

Same here.

Though, it might be due to a reporting error - the account I read re 4:30pm on August 12th is:

3:43pm

The court hears how a message sent from Sharon Griffiths to Lindsay Birbeck via Whatsapp at 4.30pm was never delivered to Lindsay's phone.

Source: Lindsay Birbeck murder trial day two - live updates from Preston Crown Court

This would indicate that the phone was either dead or had been turned off by that time.

From what I have read the latest that the phone was known to have been on was at 3:41pm on August 12th when Lindsay responded to a message from her boyfriend - Rob Chaplow. I believe this was before she left her house.

I know some accounts are more detailed than others. Does anyone know of any phone correspondence after this time?

Of course the investigators should have the exact time the phone went 'off-grid'.
 
  • #171
Pink line is footpaths. The arrow I put is where I think the lady has seen the coat. From pink line with red dot to where coat was. Also the distance is not as far as it looks. All paths out lead to Burnley road.

Your map is exactly how I imagined it.

The victim walking on the path, trees either side, jumped out on, attacked and dragged into 'foliage' and over fence.
 
  • #172
Same here.

Though, it might be due to a reporting error - the account I read re 4:30pm on August 12th is:

3:43pm

The court hears how a message sent from Sharon Griffiths to Lindsay Birbeck via Whatsapp at 4.30pm was never delivered to Lindsay's phone.

Source: Lindsay Birbeck murder trial day two - live updates from Preston Crown Court

This would indicate that the phone was either dead or had been turned off by that time.

From what I have read the latest that the phone was known to have been on was at 3:41pm on August 12th when Lindsay responded to a message from her boyfriend - Rob Chaplow. I believe this was before she left her house.

I know some accounts are more detailed than others. Does anyone know of any phone correspondence after this time?

Of course the investigators should have the exact time the phone went 'off-grid'.


It was Lancs live that reported it from court as delivered, but not read.

Hopefully we’ll get more on the phone records this week.
 
  • #173
  • #174
Please be brave for our Websleuth team and take some photos.
I will try Skigh but not good at practical things, like taking photos, or, taking the right photos! I do need to go to walk around there though. Keep driving by & thinking of doing it. Sad going by Lindsay's lovely house. It's up for sale and now under offer
 
  • #175
How did he get her pant/leggings (not sure what she was wearing) off without taking her trainers off?
Or if he took them off then removed pants why put them back on? Some of you have mentione feet swelling during decomp as a reason to cut soles off...
If he had taken them off and left them off why then not get rid of them with the clothes?
If he did put them back on (why the heck would you do that) why throw them in the same place after taking them apart?
This case is bringing to may stupid questions up...
Also the police say he took the body to the cemetery on the 17th according to the prosecution, so how the heck was her body missed for 7 days? The bin was seen on the 18th and he body wasnt that far away, and covered with stuff taken from the cemetery, how was this missed when there was plenty of people around.. It wasnt deep into brambles away from the path, and was in a shallow hole most likely made from an uprooted tree.
Also....
How do u get dna on only one glove, if he was wearing two pairs of gloves then how the heck did he manage to throw away one glove from one set and the opposite glove from the other set...
To many questions hahaha... Not enough answers....
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200229-235736.png
    Screenshot_20200229-235736.png
    178.7 KB · Views: 42
  • #176
Not so much to add to that. So take everything i said previously about the known movements, timings, placement of the coat etc. and just add this:

Defendant had previous contact with a KNOWN accomplice. A meeting was pre-arranged somewhere in the Coppice (hence the 1 hr 40 min approx between the time the defendant headed to the Coppice and the time that the victim came into contact with the attacker/s ( almost certainly 4.10pm-4.17pm approx).

The known accomplice enters the Coppice at an undisclosed time that afternoon (let's say around 1-2pm).
He enters somewhere from the side of the Accrington Bypass which i have mentioned in several previous posts (mostly a series of fields, small back-roads and farmland the majority of which is
highly unlikely to be covered by CCTV).

Obviously the meeting takes place somewhere in the covered areas of the Coppice and the defendant and the accomplice then stalk their victim together. And the events run the same as they do for a lone attacker, with the accomplice helping lift/drag the either Lindsay or the body over the fence.

('Voice' could have been the accomplice)

Then at some stage the accomplice and defendant part ways with the accomplice exiting the Coppice in the same direction . . . .

The way the accomplice enters and exits the Coppice is basically the only way that the defence could also explain the appearance and disappearance of The Mysteriously Vanishing Hooded Man. There is no CCTV and no witnesses.

Unless the police thought the defendant's story was a load of baloney (or were perhaps not as thorough as they should have been) they should have fully investigated the idea that an accomplice could have entered from Accrington Bypass side of the Coppice and escaped via the same or similar direction (CCTV on the bypass, back-roads, sightings of parked vehicles etc.)

Then to add. The family connections would have needed much further investigation, including phone and other communications etc.
This is highly unlikely to have happened especially considering how wide the network could be and the particular 'section of the community' they are dealing with and the overall historical reluctance of police to deal with them.
Thank you for this, brilliantly written as always!
 
  • #177
Does anyone have any theories as to why the location of the attack (even the actual murder) wasn't found?

I find it a bit bizarre, especially when taking into account the undisputed evidence of the CCTV of Lindsay at 4.06pm wearing her distinctive coat and that same coat being sighted on a barbed wire fence just 14 minutes later off a path in the Coppice that she regularly took. :confused:

That is a pretty narrow time frame, especially when further time could be taken off to account for reaching that point in the path. The location can also be nailed down to a pretty accurate place.
It's not like it could be 'anywhere in the Coppice' and much shrugging of investigator's shoulders.
Seems odd to me that the location of the attack hasn't been located. Hate to ask this, but, is it due to a lack of effort?
 
  • #178
I don't know exactly where the plinths are, but my guess is something like this (it's basically a rectangular slab at the base of a wall).

View attachment 235244
View attachment 235245

خرائط ‪Google‬‏‏

It's a shame we aren't getting images/maps from the trial, other than the blue bin.

ETA: click pics to make them bigger.

I thought that's where they are located. Is that area considered to be Hillock Vale?

"Preston Crown Court also heard that the blue bin left 'drag' marks on concrete plinths in the Hillock Vale area of Accrington, close to the Coppice where Lindsay was last seen."
 

Attachments

  • StonePlinths_Coppice.jpg
    StonePlinths_Coppice.jpg
    174 KB · Views: 49
  • #179
Did Lindsay's house have access to this area via a gate at the bottom of her garden?
 
  • #180
I thought that's where they are located. Is that area considered to be Hillock Vale?

"Preston Crown Court also heard that the blue bin left 'drag' marks on concrete plinths in the Hillock Vale area of Accrington, close to the Coppice where Lindsay was last seen."

Yes i believe that full area where the field is called Hillock Vale, as it says this even on old ordnance survey maps and its meaning is small hill valley
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
2,493
Total visitors
2,582

Forum statistics

Threads
632,711
Messages
18,630,825
Members
243,269
Latest member
Silent_Observer
Back
Top