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

[Mind your biscuits]

Ok guys, humour me. I have a theory about the missing trainers/phone/Lindsay’s belongings.


So we know, that his parents took him to the police station. It was clear he would be identified from that CCTV. People who knew him have already said in court they were 99% sure it was him.
So him and his family knew that the police would arrive with an arrest and search warrant.

By taking him to the station, they prevent the arrest warrant being executed, giving other family members time to dispose of anything of interest.... His trainers, rucksack, phone, and items of Lindsay’s he may have taken in his rucksack.

By the time he is arrested, processed and the search warrant issued, those items are long gone never to be found.

That works for me. They just forgot about the plastic bags. Moo.

 

[Spender]

Certainly doubt he told anyone about errors he had made at the time, assume they couldn’t check themselves at the pertinent time either, just IMO.

If the account of RM and his learning difficulties etc are to be believed he would not be able to dispose of LB’s belongings on his own .....he has had others involved in the clean up operation and I think given more time the trainers and gloves would have been collected and disposed of .

 

[Dcflag]

I'm surprised to see so many people still hung up on the idea of a separate murderer, I really am. There is literally zero evidence to prove the existence of a separate killer, and while yes, there is nothing to prove he killed her himself, there is bundles of reasonable doubt there, what is the likelihood of a second party that has left zero trace at all? With a kid that has actually kept his mouth shut? There is evidence of his part, there is nothing except a statement from a potential murderer that suggests a second party exists.

Honestly, I think the kid sounds dangerous, and I would baulk at the idea of him being let free. I would suspect moo if he is released, he will reoffend.

If the defence hadn't put across the statement of the hooded stranger, there wouldn't be a huge defence to go on. This way they have rather cleverly left that huge doubt in the jury's mind, because you don't have a murder scene, you don't have witnesses. In my opinion given the evidence the prosecution have its it's a blindingly clever defence, introducing a stranger to the mix that the prosecution have to disprove (and they can't)

I genuinely think this is a case of a dangerous kid, preying on vulnerable women alone and opportune moments. I think the police have made huge mistakes in securing evidence of his role in her death (for example allowing time for things to be destroyed/concealed by not searching the house until after he had already turned himself in.)

I also think this "travellers don't grass" nonsense is a sweeping generalised statement. It's wrong. Not even that long ago a traveller family I knew very well in my late teens, one was arrested because he paid his sister to set fire to his ex girlfriends house with their three young children inside (thankfully the house was empty) I can tell you now they all grassed eachother up to high heavens.

I think there is a real case for a not guilty verdict on murder here. Although I don't think he would walk free on an unlawful burial/tampering with a body charge. Even the faff of the prosecution so far must be affecting the way the jury is recieving and processing all this information.

While I understand it, I think it would be the wrong verdict should justice actually manage to be served this time.

 

[Loulou38]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

not sure if this has been posted already or not, but more CCTV from "The Bungalow" just higher up from WA, it shows someone like him exiting the "field area" of the coppice on the night of the 12th at 22.23pm, he was seen taking a wheelie bin up in that direction approx 2 hours previous to this clip.

Not sure whether that's the rucksack he's carrying, or could even be a coat (with the way it swishes)?

Looks like a coat and he looks kinda drunk or summat..

 

[Dcflag]

We don’t know what this sheeting is? It could be very common, so they would say anyone could have it. Her DNA Wouldn’t be on the clean sheeting.

It appears he had already got rid of her trainers so not much they could have done with that. But they could make sure nothing of hers was found at his home on the search and nothing of his with her DNA remained.

They also couldn't prove or disprove sexual assault. I can't help think that may be a very different prospect had they found her clothing.

 

[MusicalMonkey]

If she didn’t go up the side of the funeral place and Whittaker pub, would she then have not been seen on the same cctv that caught RM with the bin albeit on the opposite side of the road?

Where is her actual house?

I think her lower body/legs would have been captured on that same CCTV camera. Unless the cars were parked bumper to bumper.

 

[SpursGyal]

They also couldn't prove or disprove sexual assault. I can't help think that may be a very different prospect had they found her clothing.

Agreed. Otherwise why remove it from her body. Why strip a dead body if no sexual motive.

My mind hasn’t been swayed. They have their man, they just need to convince that jury. Before we have a very dangerous person back on the streets.

 

[Angleterre]

I have the experience of Crown Court trials from the dark side to you lol! But completely agree with everything you have said from you perspective, from my point of view, it’s a bit of a farce of a Crown Court trial really!

Haha the dark side ... made me chuckle... we are all on the same side really ... just different roles IMOO

 

[Loulou38]

I'm surprised to see so many people still hung up on the idea of a separate murderer, I really am. There is literally zero evidence to prove the existence of a separate killer, and while yes, there is nothing to prove he killed her himself, there is bundles of reasonable doubt there, what is the likelihood of a second party that has left zero trace at all? With a kid that has actually kept his mouth shut? There is evidence of his part, there is nothing except a statement from a potential murderer that suggests a second party exists.

Honestly, I think the kid sounds dangerous, and I would baulk at the idea of him being let free. I would suspect moo if he is released, he will reoffend.

If the defence hadn't put across the statement of the hooded stranger, there wouldn't be a huge defence to go on. This way they have rather cleverly left that huge doubt in the jury's mind, because you don't have a murder scene, you don't have witnesses. In my opinion given the evidence the prosecution have its it's a blindingly clever defence, introducing a stranger to the mix that the prosecution have to disprove (and they can't)

I genuinely think this is a case of a dangerous kid, preying on vulnerable women alone and opportune moments. I think the police have made huge mistakes in securing evidence of his role in her death (for example allowing time for things to be destroyed/concealed by not searching the house until after he had already turned himself in.)

I also think this "travellers don't grass" nonsense is a sweeping generalised statement. It's wrong. Not even that long ago a traveller family I knew very well in my late teens, one was arrested because he paid his sister to set fire to his ex girlfriends house with their three young children inside (thankfully the house was empty) I can tell you now they all grassed eachother up to high heavens.

I think there is a real case for a not guilty verdict on murder here. Although I don't think he would walk free on an unlawful burial/tampering with a body charge. Even the faff of the prosecution so far must be affecting the way the jury is recieving and processing all this information.

While I understand it, I think it would be the wrong verdict should justice actually manage to be served this time.

No it's not nonsense about them not grassing on each other, this is words coming from a gypsy himself, a guy my partner works with. I also know quite a few from the community and they stick together like glue!

 

[MusicalMonkey]

I'm surprised to see so many people still hung up on the idea of a separate murderer, I really am. There is literally zero evidence to prove the existence of a separate killer, and while yes, there is nothing to prove he killed her himself, there is bundles of reasonable doubt there, what is the likelihood of a second party that has left zero trace at all? With a kid that has actually kept his mouth shut? There is evidence of his part, there is nothing except a statement from a potential murderer that suggests a second party exists.

Honestly, I think the kid sounds dangerous, and I would baulk at the idea of him being let free. I would suspect moo if he is released, he will reoffend.

If the defence hadn't put across the statement of the hooded stranger, there wouldn't be a huge defence to go on. This way they have rather cleverly left that huge doubt in the jury's mind, because you don't have a murder scene, you don't have witnesses. In my opinion given the evidence the prosecution have its it's a blindingly clever defence, introducing a stranger to the mix that the prosecution have to disprove (and they can't)

I genuinely think this is a case of a dangerous kid, preying on vulnerable women alone and opportune moments. I think the police have made huge mistakes in securing evidence of his role in her death (for example allowing time for things to be destroyed/concealed by not searching the house until after he had already turned himself in.)

I also think this "travellers don't grass" nonsense is a sweeping generalised statement. It's wrong. Not even that long ago a traveller family I knew very well in my late teens, one was arrested because he paid his sister to set fire to his ex girlfriends house with their three young children inside (thankfully the house was empty) I can tell you now they all grassed eachother up to high heavens.

I think there is a real case for a not guilty verdict on murder here. Although I don't think he would walk free on an unlawful burial/tampering with a body charge. Even the faff of the prosecution so far must be affecting the way the jury is recieving and processing all this information.

While I understand it, I think it would be the wrong verdict should justice actually manage to be served this time.

I agree with most of this (though I think he committed the murder on his own and had help covering it up to some degree).

I would be interested in where you think the 'Hooded Man story' has come from? Given that the defendant 'no commented' in his original interviews and has been made out to be some kind of 'mute in public' that can't take the stand - even to answer "yes or no" to the burning questions such as; Did you meet the hooded man in the Coppice? and all the subsequent and related closed questions that would have to follow. . .

 

[Dcflag]

No it's not nonsense about them not grassing on each other, this is words coming from a gypsy himself, a guy my partner works with. I also know quite a few from the community and they stick together like glue!

Again, a generalised sweeping statement. Just because you know someone who knows someone. You cannot possibly apply this logic to every traveller. The fact is people are people.

 

[Dcflag]

I agree with most of this (though I think he committed the murder on his own and had help covering it up to some degree).

I would be interested in where you think the 'Hooded Man story' has come from? Given that the defendant 'no commented' in his original interviews and has been made out to be some kind of 'mute in public' that can't take the stand - even to answer "yes or no" to the burning questions such as; Did you meet the hooded man in the Coppice? and all the subsequent and related closed questions that would have to follow. . .

It came about after the first interview, where I'm sure it became blindingly obvious there was no real evidence pinning him to the actual murder.

Obviously solicitors cannot lie for you, but I don't think it's a huge stretch really to assume the hooded man story has been born out of the realisation that there is nothing definitively tying him to the murder.

In putting him into a statement the onus is now on the prosecution to prove the man doesn't exist, a much harder prospect that just proving the defendant did it.

I can get on board with certain things being covered up by others way after the fact, but I don't at all think anyone knew prior to her body being found.

I'm also a bit wary of the descriptions of the defendant. He comes across as very timid, vulnerable and easily manipulated. But I also get the impression he lacks empathy, is unable to recognise the severity of his actions, and I don't personally think he cares that much, either about her death, getting caught, the trial. Any of it. But that is of course moo from what I've read of the trial updates so far.

 

[SpursGyal]

No it's not nonsense about them not grassing on each other, this is words coming from a gypsy himself, a guy my partner works with. I also know quite a few from the community and they stick together like glue!

A few years ago, my mum had her van stolen from outside our house.
It was stolen by a traveller.
The van was recovered by the police, because someone on the site he lived on, and took the van too, rang the police and reported him for the theft and that he was in the process of ‘ringing it’.

They do grass. Not every single one will. But they do.

The same with anyone, from any community.

 

[MusicalMonkey]

It came about after the first interview, where I'm sure it became blindingly obvious there was no real evidence pinning him to the actual murder.

Obviously solicitors cannot lie for you, but I don't think it's a huge stretch really to assume the hooded man story has been born out of the realisation that there is nothing definitively tying him to the murder.

In putting him into a statement the onus is now on the prosecution to prove the man doesn't exist, a much harder prospect that just proving the defendant did it.

I think you understood the meaning of my question. But just to clarify: When I asked 'Where has the hooded man story come from?'. I meant who came up with it?

The defendant?

A 'family member'?

The solicitor?

I just find it hard to believe how someone that can supposedly only say 'yes' and 'no' can somehow come up with an articulated story (however unbelievable)?
And to coax that out of someone you would essentially have to make up the story yourself to some degree (if you get what I mean).

It's like one of those language word games.

I think the easiest way of doing it would be for a family member at home to have done it.

 

[Alyce]

I'm surprised to see so many people still hung up on the idea of a separate murderer, I really am. There is literally zero evidence to prove the existence of a separate killer, and while yes, there is nothing to prove he killed her himself, there is bundles of reasonable doubt there, what is the likelihood of a second party that has left zero trace at all? With a kid that has actually kept his mouth shut? There is evidence of his part, there is nothing except a statement from a potential murderer that suggests a second party exists.

Honestly, I think the kid sounds dangerous, and I would baulk at the idea of him being let free. I would suspect moo if he is released, he will reoffend.

If the defence hadn't put across the statement of the hooded stranger, there wouldn't be a huge defence to go on. This way they have rather cleverly left that huge doubt in the jury's mind, because you don't have a murder scene, you don't have witnesses. In my opinion given the evidence the prosecution have its it's a blindingly clever defence, introducing a stranger to the mix that the prosecution have to disprove (and they can't)

I genuinely think this is a case of a dangerous kid, preying on vulnerable women alone and opportune moments. I think the police have made huge mistakes in securing evidence of his role in her death (for example allowing time for things to be destroyed/concealed by not searching the house until after he had already turned himself in.)

I also think this "travellers don't grass" nonsense is a sweeping generalised statement. It's wrong. Not even that long ago a traveller family I knew very well in my late teens, one was arrested because he paid his sister to set fire to his ex girlfriends house with their three young children inside (thankfully the house was empty) I can tell you now they all grassed eachother up to high heavens.

I think there is a real case for a not guilty verdict on murder here. Although I don't think he would walk free on an unlawful burial/tampering with a body charge. Even the faff of the prosecution so far must be affecting the way the jury is recieving and processing all this information.

While I understand it, I think it would be the wrong verdict should justice actually manage to be served this time.

I agree with you re his Defence, far smarter than a simple I didn’t do it.

With regard to the police not moving fast enough with the house searches.
I don’t believe they could have moved earlier.
The cctv of accused with the bin was released on August 27 and he was taken to the police station with parents some 4 hours later. More than enough time to dispose of items.

Also, I think the evidence said he was interviewed under caution on August 28 and 29. I presume that means that on the 27th at least, he was simply assisting the police with their enquiries. I don’t believe they could issue warrant to search until he was being interviewed under caution.
.

 

[Angleterre]

No it's not nonsense about them not grassing on each other, this is words coming from a gypsy himself, a guy my partner works with. I also know quite a few from the community and they stick together like glue!

I must be honest and say that I respect your opinion and experience regarding the ‘grassing’ on each other but that is not my experience and I have had plenty of it when dealing as an investigator ,with the travelling community for a myriad of offences, wether that be petty crime or serious crime and the same goes for many of my colleagues.

With regard to your comment about the Police not searching RM house before he handed himself in, this is a genuine question by the way because I wasn’t fully following the case at that time, do you know if the Police had the legal power to search his home ? And even if they did and as you assert, they missed an opportunity ( which if that’s the case then I agree with you), the Police would have only been allowed under their search powers, to search the bedroom of RM and the communal areas . Otherwise they would not have the power to search the rest of the house unless the owner of the property agreed and was in attendance as an appropriate adult because of his age . So in terms of legal power you have a search conducted under the issue of a Magistrates warrant - but what for ? It’s not under the misuse of drugs act or the theft act or anything under a specific power . And if they did need to search under a Magistrate’s warrant then I would say that they obviously didn’t have enough to detain him at that time otherwise they would have used powers under PACE ( Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984). These two powers would be (prior to the introduction of the serious and organised crime and police act 2005 which more or less replicated the powers under PACE ) S32 to search the place where the arrested person was at the time of or immediately prior to the time of his or her arrest or S18 to search the place where the arrested person resides once the person has been arrested and lodged at the police station or to search a premises that they reside at prior to taking the offender to the police station but after arrest .
So taking all of that into account, I am not sure it would have made a huge difference depending upon at what stage the Police knew RM was believed to be responsible for an arrestable offence and tried but failed to locate him as opposed to if they knew it was him but made no effort to locate him and awaited his attendance at the police station voluntarily- the latter I find very hard to believe bearing in mind that this is a high profile murder investigation . So where do you feel that they dropped the ball with the search? And again , I am asking out of genuine interest.
With regards to your comment about the defences introduction of a third party and how this has clouded ( my words of interpretation) the jury and left room for reasonable doubt, even if they had not have introduced this , there was and is/are a ton of issues around reasonable doubt and it’s up to the Prosecution to prove beyond ALL reasonable doubt that RM did in fact murder LB . To my mind, they have not done so, not even close to doing so , therefore even if this 3rd person was not brought into the equation, the jury would still have to find him not guilty ( on the evidence that I have heard presented so far ) because the prosecution have not proven that he did in fact murder LB. So personally, I do not think it’s clever at all - I feel it is of no real consequence because the fact of the matter is that it cannot be proven that RM is responsible.
I do agree that there’s a good possibility of him Re offending and presenting a danger to the public because if he clearly does know if a third person was involved, he knows who that was . And if he did in fact act alone then he is more educated than anybody so far is giving him credit for because the scene of the crime has not been able to be identified and that takes some doing . However, conversely, if he is as educationally challenged as we are led to believe and if his very limited in his speech and social skills then that in itself is concerning in my opinion because that is just as much a danger because he may have no real comprehension of what he has done and the consequences of his actions ( I don’t believe this to be the case but I am playing devils advocate here and looking at it from both sides).
Ultimately, I do agree that unless the Prosecutor bring forth any further evidence to tie RM to the murder of LB then I do believe and agree with you that he will be found not guilty. And as I commented upon earlier in this thread, without sounding critical of my fellow Police colleagues and Detectives, personally I would have approached this prosecution in a totally different way. But then the benefit of hindsight Is a wonderful thing .

 

[Dcflag]

I think you understood the meaning of my question. But just to clarify: When I asked 'Where has the hooded man story come from?'. I meant who came up with it?

The defendant?

A 'family member'?

The solicitor?

I just find it hard to believe how someone that can supposedly only say 'yes' and 'no' can somehow come up with an articulated story (however unbelievable)?
And to coax that out of someone you would essentially have to make up the story yourself to some degree (if you get what I mean).

It's like one of those language word games.

I think the easiest way of doing it would be for a family member at home to have done it.

Ah okay!

So I guess the short answer is I don't know, I can't tell you and I wouldn't like to guess. But I do think it's viable it's become a collective effort. But then I don't think he's as stupid as people seem to think he is either. All it would take in my eyes would be for a family member to prompt and a solicitor would run with it.

I have seen some footage of interviews with young, low iq people and the appropriate adult situation is so tricky and very important because often these kids do make things up, or say what they think people want to here, or pull things from movies they've seen or books they've read.

I noticed talk about who was his appropriate adult. I think this could be very interesting to find out.

 

[MusicalMonkey]

A few years ago, my mum had her van stolen from outside our house.
It was stolen by a traveller.
The van was recovered by the police, because someone on the site he lived on, and took the van too, rang the police and reported him for the theft and that he was in the process of ‘ringing it’.

They do grass. Not every single one will. But they do.

The same with anyone, from any community.

I take your point. Though obviously not all 'gypsies' are blood related family though.

And blood runs thicker than water. I don't think a blood relative (real family) would 'grass'.

I will also add in something I said a few days ago. That historically the police do not investigate 'certain members of the community' as thoroughly as they should and I wonder if apart from the basic, any family connection to the murder was looked into properly. If at all.

 

[Dcflag]

I agree with you re his Defence, far smarter than a simple I didn’t do it.

With regard to the police not moving fast enough with the house searches.
I don’t believe they could have moved earlier.
The cctv of accused with the bin was released on August 27 and he was taken to the police station with parents some 4 hours later. More than enough time to dispose of items.

Also, I think the evidence said he was interviewed under caution on August 28 and 29. I presume that means that on the 27th at least, he was simply assisting the police with their enquiries. I don’t believe they could issue warrant to search until he was being interviewed under caution.
.

No you're absolutely right, which again, is a brilliant move in hindsight for him to hand himself in rather than wait for a warrant/arrest. But I also find it incredulous (but not completely unbelievable) that she was missed in searches of a vicinity so small.

It's a bizarre case I'll give it that.

 

[Angleterre]

A

I agree with most of this (though I think he committed the murder on his own and had help covering it up to some degree).

I would be interested in where you think the 'Hooded Man story' has come from? Given that the defendant 'no commented' in his original interviews and has been made out to be some kind of 'mute in public' that can't take the stand - even to answer "yes or no" to the burning questions such as; Did you meet the hooded man in the Coppice? and all the subsequent and related closed questions that would have to follow. . .

Although it can be questioned as being ethical , in this situation, it’s not beyond the realms of probability that the defence solicitor has not posed the following questions to RM during their legal representation meeting prior to the police interview...
1. Did you murder LB
RM - no
2. Well you were found in possession or witnessed being with or in the area of where LB was found. Could it be that someone asked you to hide her body ?
RM - yes
3. Ok could it be the case that they said to you that they would take you to where you needed to pick the body Up from and tell you that you needed to take her to the ( deposition site) ?
RM - yes
4. And could it be that they told you that if you did this for them that they would give you a lot of money?
RM - yes
5. And could it be that the way for you to collect the money from them was to meet them afterwards in the same place they told you to Collect the body from ?
RM -yes
I am not saying that this is what happened and that this is how the wording of the prepared statement came about. But I am merely suggesting that it is a possible way that the prepared statement came about from somebody who is described as not being able to hold such a convincing conversation with a third party. Do you understand where I am coming from? All MOO