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

[Legally Bland]

I wonder if Lindsay saw,from an upstairs window in her house, Rocky acting suspiciously and went to check up what he was doing.
Perhaps Rocky used the chicken sheds as a sort of den .

She was on CCTV just after the path up to the outbuildings. I guess she could have gone through the pub car park, I just find it unlikely.

خرائط ‪Google‬‏‏

 

[SpursGyal]

It’s believed she went up the footpath on the far side of the pub isn’t it?

 

[LancashireLad]

MOO but I think he’s guilty as sin.

I believe he has previously attacked women, one near the cut through at Accrington Cricket club, although that can’t be confirmed and it’s probably built up to this.

His defence is a pie in the sky story that no jury is going to believe and I think the prosecution must be building up to the evidence that’s going to prove beyond doubt he did it. Fingernail samples or such like that can’t be explained by moving of the body.

The “I didn’t murder him/her but I did move the body” isn’t a new defence it’s been used 100s of times.

Should make for an interesting couple of weeks

JMO

 

[Legally Bland]

Personally Hongkongphoey I think it is tenuous. Irrespective as to if the SIO and murder team believe that he is in fact the perpetrator, unless it is shown to be beyond all reasonable doubt , which from what I am aware of so far, and unless the SIO and his or her team can provide the evidence to show his actual involvement in the murder,wether that be by witness testimony, CCTV , DNA, Fingerprints or via telephone location services etc then I personally can’t see how, at this moment in the trial , they can say that he murdered LB and there is no question that he is responsible, beyond all reasonable doubt. That being the case then I can’t see that it will be a guilty verdict . But who knows... stranger things have happened.
The one thing that I will draw attention to is that in the UK the double jeopardy law
is no longer in being so therefore, if he was found not guilty ,then further down the line, evidence appears that wasn’t previously available at trial , then if it is classed as new evidence, he can be subjected to a retrial.
So all is not lost . I haven’t been able to follow the trial thus far as I’ve been back and forth from the hospital all of last week so I am unsure where ‘autism’ comes into it and to what degree , but what I will say is that if there is such an issue due to a recognised medical condition then the judge will Be professional enough to consult with experts in that field if it is deemed necessary for fair and equitable justice all round . The judge would then give a directive to the jury and ask that they follow that direction without being swayed either way by the prosecution or the defence and to remove all emotion where applicable and deal with facts only . I am not sure if that helps at all to answer your question/s?

Did you ever take any "no body" cases to trial? I can think of a couple of cases where there was less evidence and I feel pretty comfortable with the guilty verdicts.

I'm struggling to see how admittedly being in possession of (and disposing of) a murdered woman's body isn't a very convincing piece of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Doris777]

Just to put it out there as well. There is a school just off the path of the coppice. Could he been spending time there watching kids? Or if he's been in them sheds what about drugs? Was he drinking? Did he have a stash of drugs in them.sheds? If so could it be possible he did kill her but couldn't remember actually doing it..he just remembers moving a body...?

Can't wait to see what is said this week on court.

Moo

 

[Alyce]

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....

snipped from post above

How did he get her pant/leggings (not sure what she was wearing) off without taking her trainers off?

my best guess would be with a knife


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.

I thought it was just one pair of gloves ?

 

[Alyce]

He has admitted it, but they haven’t charged for it... so if they had charged with murder, perverting the course of justice and preventing a lawful burial, they could have got a 2/3 guilty verdicts.
I still think more evidence is coming this week that points to Murder, because otherwise why haven’t they added the other charges.

It's puzzling isn't it. Usually, if the defendant has already put in a guilty plea for some parts of the incident, then the reporting would indicate this - ie; defendant has already pleaded guilty to ...etc

Perhaps we are just not getting the complete information, or perhaps CPS are so confident of a murder charge they don't feel the need to add the accompanying charges ? which, as we all know, will run concurrently with the main sentence.

 

[SpursGyal]

It's puzzling isn't it. Usually, if the defendant has already put in a guilty plea for some parts of the incident, then the reporting would indicate this - ie; defendant has already pleaded guilty to ...etc

Perhaps we are just not getting the complete information, or perhaps CPS are so confident of a murder charge they don't feel the need to add the accompanying charges ? which, as we all know, will run concurrently with the main sentence.

I’m guessing it’s the latter, which means they must have some more evidence up their sleeves.

 

[Doris777]

It's safe to say we will all be glued to put phone screens tomorrow to see what happens. I know I will be.

 

[Roostercat]

Perfect description, it’s not a path I’d use if walking alone

Yes I agree, I avoided it before LB went missing. Her choosing to take this path has always been a question mark for me. The weekend prior to her dissappearance was awful weather, heavy rain. Alot of local events were cancelled. I always thought surely she wouldn't choose to go that way knowing how muddy and wet it would have been. Her trainers would have been awfully muddy.

 

[Roostercat]

MOO but I think he’s guilty as sin.

I believe he has previously attacked women, one near the cut through at Accrington Cricket club, although that can’t be confirmed and it’s probably built up to this.

His defence is a pie in the sky story that no jury is going to believe and I think the prosecution must be building up to the evidence that’s going to prove beyond doubt he did it. Fingernail samples or such like that can’t be explained by moving of the body.

The “I didn’t murder him/her but I did move the body” isn’t a new defence it’s been used 100s of times.

Should make for an interesting couple of weeks

JMO

Local hearsay perhaps but I have heard the prosecutions key witness is another lady that was chased by the defendant not long before LB went missing. Have also heard they have no intimate forensic evidence other than the glove but that is accounted for through the 'moving the body' defence.

 

[Mind your biscuits]

Easy to manipulate, maybe all they needed was someone to "take care of the body" while they got away...
Maybe he was told to wait around that day, and maybe the coat was hung to signify where the body was... I know he said he met a hooded guy, but that could be a cover story, maybe he knew she was gonna come to harm because someone had messaged or rung him and they had told him to wait around?
Just thoughts...
If he did plan on killing her he did a **** job of covering his tracks after, didn't plan it well... If he did it randomly why didn't he leave her where she was? Why not cover her body and leg it?

Do we know if he had a phone with him?

 

[SpursGyal]

Do we know if he had a phone with him?

Nothing has been mentioned but his cell data could be interesting.

 

[sunflower22]

Local hearsay perhaps but I have heard the prosecutions key witness is another lady that was chased by the defendant not long before LB went missing. Have also heard they have no intimate forensic evidence other than the glove but that is accounted for through the 'moving the body' defence.

I did hear this, i believe it was also in the coppice area.

 

[Doris777]

I did hear this, i believe it was also in the coppice area.

That would be interesting to see what they say regarding that.

 

[Mind your biscuits]

Were the parents going for 'damage limitation', our son did not kill that lady, what upstanding citizens of the community we are bringing our son to stand here before you to tell you all he knows, bla bla bla?

Or maybe 'yes that's our son dragging the bin, he does that regularly when collecting scrap and helping recycle in the community.' Lol Moo. Eta spelling.

 

[Kaykedi]

Or maybe 'yes that's our son dragging the bin, he does that regularly when collecting scrap and helping recycle in the community.' Lol Moo. Eta spelling.

Yes!

 

[LancashireLad]

Local hearsay perhaps but I have heard the prosecutions key witness is another lady that was chased by the defendant not long before LB went missing. Have also heard they have no intimate forensic evidence other than the glove but that is accounted for through the 'moving the body' defence.

yes this was mentioned at the time if I remember correctly

 

[The Truth Is]

The chicken sheds are very close...

I doubt this because Lindsay would surely not pass the bungalow to go to this shed.

 

[The Truth Is]

yes this was mentioned at the time if I remember correctly

When was this earlier near miss supposed to have happened?