Found Deceased UK - Lindsay Birbeck, 47, Accrington, 12 Aug 2019 *Arrest* #4

[Roostercat]

No it hasn’t

OK thank you. Well the unknown Dna is neither here nor there IMO. Thinking about it, if there was a match, that would definitely be of interest to the defence so am sure would have been mentioned?

 

[Roostercat]

No it hasn’t

OK thank you. Well the unknown Dna is neither here nor there IMO. Thinking about it, if there was a match, that would definitely be of interest to the defence so am sure would have been mentioned?

That window of time makes absolutely no sense to me

It didn't to me initially but is possible. 11 minutes walk from the burnley Rd cctv to the point on the coppice path of possible red jacket sighting. Time 4.17pm. The voice Mrs Bibby heard wad the defendant telling LB to be quiet or LB softly pleading with him. He used his knee to silence her... Very small window but doable. IMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

OK thank you. Well the unknown Dna is neither here nor there IMO. Thinking about it, if there was a match, that would definitely be of interest to the defence so am sure would have been mentioned?

The newly introduced DNA was of limited quality.

One (the bin I think) was deemed to be a male profile but didn't rule it out being the defendants.

The profile on the trainers was not LB's or the defendants but that of an unknown third party. That doesn't mean it was someone involved in LB's disappearance though.

The unidentified profile on the glove, was just that, unidentified. It could have been LB's, the defendants, another interested party or someone not connected to LB's disappearance.

All this newly agreed DNA evidence did was to introduce some poor quality unidentified profiles, one from a male.

They enable the defence to create that little bit of additional doubt about the defendants guilt to the jury.

Creating sufficicient doubt is the name of the game for the defence.

The prosecution have to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, which is the hard bit!

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Thanks everyone for the updates.

Something in particular is standing out for me. The prosecution made the point - if you had just murdered someone, would you ask a random stranger to dispose of the body for you?

Taking it further - why would you? To hide the crime.. Ok so you are going to trust a young lad who apparently struggles with communication to take care of the job for you.

You're going to trust him not to "dob you in", even though he's a complete stranger. You're certain he won't freak out, or yell, but you don't know him.

You're going to be sure that he won't think you're a monster for killing this woman, and react to that.

Here for me is the reasonable doubt.

I know some people think he was covering up for a family member,or working with someone. (I don't, personally.) But this cant be introduced into the deliberations. It hasnt been entered as evidence anywhere. The jury cannot bring their own guesswork of other theories into any debate, AFAIK. So it's not a factor in the case. It's mystery man, or it's the defendant, acting alone.

Those are the two choices, based on the evidence.

 

[sunflower22]

Thanks everyone for the updates.

Something in particular is standing out for me. The prosecution made the point - if you had just murdered someone, would you ask a random stranger to dispose of the body for you?

Taking it further - why would you? To hide the crime.. Ok so you are going to trust a young lad who apparently struggles with communication to take care of the job for you.

You're going to trust him not to "dob you in", even though he's a complete stranger. You're certain he won't freak out, or yell, but you don't know him.

You're going to be sure that he won't think you're a monster for killing this woman, and react to that.

Here for me is the reasonable doubt.

I know some people think he was covering up for a family member,or working with someone. (I don't, personally.) But this cant be introduced into the deliberations. It hasnt been entered as evidence anywhere. The jury cannot bring their own guesswork of other theories into any debate, AFAIK. So it's not a factor in the case. It's mystery man, or it's the defendant, acting alone.

Those are the two choices, based on the evidence.

IMO I don’t think he killed her, and that someone known to him carried out this awful murder. They have got rid of all the evidence that contained their DNA like her clothing phone etc (I don’t know why the shoes got left) I don’t think he is guilty but because he has said a stranger and the jury like you stated can only go of the evidence heard I don’t think that will sit well with them. Someone is still out there who was involved in all this.

 

[Doris777]

Not sure how I feel about that, a verdict on the very day, difficult for the family to deal with if it happens on Wednesday.

I don’t think I’ve ever followed a case before where no defence is given.

But at least it should mean a very short closing speech from him tomorrow, he can hardly choose to speak at length if he feels there is no case to answer to ( other than what his client has already admitted to ).

Same, I think it would be very hard for the family and everyone following that on the anniversary of it happening he's found not guilty or something. That would be hard! MOO

As for defence tomorrow, what can he actually say if he's not said anything on court today as a defence? Is it even possible that he's just thinking his side is perfect and it's all good in a sense and he will be found not guilty so he doesn't have to say anything...if u know what I mean? Basically being abit of a big head? Moo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks everyone for the updates.

Something in particular is standing out for me. The prosecution made the point - if you had just murdered someone, would you ask a random stranger to dispose of the body for you?

Taking it further - why would you? To hide the crime.. Ok so you are going to trust a young lad who apparently struggles with communication to take care of the job for you.

You're going to trust him not to "dob you in", even though he's a complete stranger. You're certain he won't freak out, or yell, but you don't know him.

You're going to be sure that he won't think you're a monster for killing this woman, and react to that.

Here for me is the reasonable doubt.

I know some people think he was covering up for a family member,or working with someone. (I don't, personally.) But this cant be introduced into the deliberations. It hasnt been entered as evidence anywhere. The jury cannot bring their own guesswork of other theories into any debate, AFAIK. So it's not a factor in the case. It's mystery man, or it's the defendant, acting alone.

Those are the two choices, based on the evidence.

Exactly.....that's the crux of it.

No doubt Mrs Justice Yip will explain this to the jury in an equally eloquent fashion.....you're not her are you?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Exactly.....that's the crux of it.

No doubt Mrs Justice Yip will explain this to the jury in an equally eloquent fashion.....you're not her are you?

Rumbled

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That window of time makes absolutely no sense to me

I believe that the assertion is that LB was attacked after ZB was followed and prior to Mrs Bibby arriving at The Coppice and seeing the red material on the fence, the defence case being that it was LB's coat.

I don't recall the times given by ZB and Mrs Bibby being challenged by the defence, so they must have been satisfied as to their veracity.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Exactly.....that's the crux of it.

No doubt Mrs Justice Yip will explain this to the jury in an equally eloquent fashion.....you're not her are you?

I think as well, that it's a mistake to think all sexually motivated crimes are the way people might expect them to be.

I'm not saying this was the motive here, I havent given that a lot of thought.

But I'm thinking of what I have read about killers such as the Yorkshire Ripper. I'm not spelling it out here but you will know what I mean.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I think as well, that it's a mistake to think all sexually motivated crimes are the way people might expect them to be.

I'm not saying this was the motive here, I havent given that a lot of thought.

But I'm thinking of what I have read about killers such as the Yorkshire Ripper. I'm not spelling it out here but you will know what I mean.

Agreed. We are talking crimes where sexual assualt is the use of violence for power, control and dehumanization of the victim. It has nothing to do with normal human sexuality.

 

[Spender]

IMO I don’t think he killed her, and that someone known to him carried out this awful murder. They have got rid of all the evidence that contained their DNA like her clothing phone etc (I don’t know why the shoes got left) I don’t think he is guilty but because he has said a stranger and the jury like you stated can only go of the evidence heard I don’t think that will sit well with them. Someone is still out there who was involved in all this.

Yes the shoes......is it possible if he was coerced by someone else they have told him to remove her clothing and belongings and bring them to be disposed of ....he’s gone back home or wherever the disposal site was without the shoes as he’s either forgot to remove them or couldn’t remove them as he has difficulty with shoe laces hence them being cut off ? My son is autistic and his memory span isn’t great , I can give him instructions that he appears to have taken in but minutes later it’s gone , also his dexterity is pretty bad so has trouble with knots and fiddley stuff . JMO

 

[Popcorn80]

Going off track a little, after we have a verdict (either way, my opinion changes by the hour!) do you think we will hear the reason why a retrial was ordered?

 

[sunflower22]

Going off track a little, after we have a verdict (either way, my opinion changes by the hour!) do you think we will hear the reason why a retrial was ordered?

No I don’t think we will know. IMO I think the jury was the reason for this

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Going off track a little, after we have a verdict (either way, my opinion changes by the hour!) do you think we will hear the reason why a retrial was ordered?

I would think that if the reason for discharging the jury and having a re-trial were for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial and it would not risk revealing the defendants identity, if reporting restrictions are not lifted, then quite possibly, yes.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Legally Bland]

Going off track a little, after we have a verdict (either way, my opinion changes by the hour!) do you think we will hear the reason why a retrial was ordered?

I hope so, I guess it probably depends on what the reason was. There was one earlier this year where it was disclosed after the retrial, so maybe:

The jury in Unmathallegadoo’s first trial was discharged after a juror raised an issue of psychiatric illness against the judge’s direction not to speculate and despite no evidence being heard about his mental state.

Vengeful ex-husband guilty of crossbow murder of pregnant woman

 

[Legally Bland]

I think as well, that it's a mistake to think all sexually motivated crimes are the way people might expect them to be.

I'm not saying this was the motive here, I havent given that a lot of thought.

But I'm thinking of what I have read about killers such as the Yorkshire Ripper. I'm not spelling it out here but you will know what I mean.

This is about serial killers, but I think the same would apply to non-serial killers. It's from the FBI and I think it backs up what you mean:

Sexually-based is a motivation driven by the sexual needs/desires of the offender. There may or may not be overt sexual contact reflected in the crime scene.

Serial Murder | Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

[accylocal]

Been following this case since it happened. I am a local man living in Accrington and was one of the many who helped looked for Lindsay. I have lived in Accrington all my life and live currently 2 minutes away from the forest and cricket club where the defendant will have walked towards the cemetery. I walk my dog along these ways nearly everyday. Just to put you in the picture.

After following this since the start and today without no new evidence i have come to my conclusion of what i think has happened. As being close to the scene i can imagine the routes and ways he has also gone around it.

My judgement is that the defendant is the person who killed Lindsay Birbeck. This person has looked for the opportunity that day to kill a woman. In his own head he has planned, looked and seized that opportunity. On the day of the murder the defendant had a bag ready with all the equipment to try and dismember and hide a body aswell as the blue bin to move the body. The only reason you would have these to hand that day is because it was a planned murder by the boy. The CCTV shows the defendant leaving the coppice and walking back to get his bag. The time states 8 to 9 minutes, with myself knowing the local area that would give him enough time to walk down past the coppice, go behind the cemetery into the woods, collect his bag and walk back up. The only way he could of been that quick is by having that bag to hand , quickly collecting it and walking back up to burnley road and then entering the coppice. Its quite a walk there and back. Just to let you all know that where the defendant has walked, there is a short path that leads up to the caravan park where he was from. He will of walked from his travellers site with his bag and maybe the bin also but certainly the bag, left it in the bushes, murdered Lindsay and then walked down to get it. The bag would of stopped him doing what he wanted to do with also the fact he didn't know if it was all going to go as it did. He also didn't know where about on the coppice this murder would occur. Why the coppice also? It could of happened in the woods behind the cemetery or even around the cemetery area.

The witness woman who saw the man on the coppice will of been the defendant. Lucky for her i really do think that she could of been his victim and he was on the look for an opportunity to murder a woman. There is no reason for him to be around there other than for that in my eyes. No walkers had seen him before and i also know a lot of people who walk the coppice daily and they have never seen him before and neither has anyone else. I think her looking at him, her taking a different route and her walking down the path has saved her life. He has then disappeared as she said in her statement and he has gone looking for another victim. Unfortunately the next victim was Lindsay. I also think he has been startled by the witness on the coppice, leading him to exit the coppice near to the crime scene behind whittakers pub and at the most unluckiest of times for Lindsay, she has walked up that way, they have crossed paths and he has murdered her. Could it of been because he was leaving the coppice and going back towards home or was he waiting for someone else to walk that way? We will never know.

Because he has really planned what he was going to do he has wrapped the body very well that night, put the body into the blue bin and hidden this bin around the bushes and overgrown into the coppice behind the whittakers pub. When the time has come for him to move it because searches have gone cold and less people are around and haven't found the bin with the body he has then decided to move this into the cemetery to hide the body. Why the cemetery i thought? Why not bury the body around where he murdered her? I think there could be numerous reasons. Many people walking at night especially a lot more now with the disappearance of Lindsay and he could be caught. Maybe like a lot of killers he had a lot of remorse and a lot of days to think about it and he wanted to bury her in the cemetery. Or it was easy to move the body closer to where he knew and was easy access from where he lived and where he was used to. Maybe he saw the article regarding the police had done a search at the cemetery. Its all a mystery regarding that.

The items that have gone missing , her phone , fitbit etc and clothes he has got rid of on the day. Whether they have been burnt or whether he has just put them in a bin and its just been emptied the next day and its as easy as that. The items found in the skip will of been some of the waste he put in the bin after getting the body in the bin.

What i do find remarkable though is how he moved her. Now with her size and looking at Lindsay i would put her at around 14/15 stone. Now i have a bin outside full of garden waste, im a strong male and i tell you something its extremely difficult to pull in those bins and for someone to pull it along burnley road, where he was seen on cctv has small incline is remarkable.

The boy has serious issues. The motive i think will confuse people for a long time. Myself, i think he has alot of issues, had murder in his mind and wanted to do what he planned to do that day. He packed that bag full of essentials to hide a body that day and he was at the scene of the crime. Another reason i think he may of killed Lindsay, not for someone else but i think personally for him. Maybe he needed to prove a point to someone that he was this dangerous person to friends or to family and wanted a reputation. But my head says that he is just a cold blooded murderer like alot of people that have previously done it and Lindsay was entering the coppice while he was leaving or waiting and he has done what he wanted to do.

Regarding the gory way she was murdered, i think he has strangled her by kneeling on her neck then once she has has passed out he has made sure she is dead by stamping numerous times aggressively on her neck to make sure she was dead. Its like murderers who repeatedly stab a victim or use a hammer etc. Its never once.

I also think the husband and wife who witnessed a coat hung up in the bushes and a noise was the defendant with Lindsay. I think by then Lindsay was dead and he had taken her jacket off, put it to the side and he was planning to do something with the body or he was doing something with the body hence why the coat was taken off.

These are my views and to me i cant see it being anything else. If anyone wants to question or ask me anything about what i have said then i will answer.

 

[Jartykarate]

Yes the shoes......is it possible if he was coerced by someone else they have told him to remove her clothing and belongings and bring them to be disposed of ....he’s gone back home or wherever the disposal site was without the shoes as he’s either forgot to remove them or couldn’t remove them as he has difficulty with shoe laces hence them being cut off ? My son is autistic and his memory span isn’t great , I can give him instructions that he appears to have taken in but minutes later it’s gone , also his dexterity is pretty bad so has trouble with knots and fiddley stuff . JMO

Without getting too graphic the body and presumably the feet swell after death, so maybe he did have difficulty removing the shoes, and removing the soles was a way of loosening them to attempt removal.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This is about serial killers, but I think the same would apply to non-serial killers. It's from the FBI and I think it backs up what you mean:

Sexually-based is a motivation driven by the sexual needs/desires of the offender. There may or may not be overt sexual contact reflected in the crime scene.

Serial Murder | Federal Bureau of Investigation

That's a can of worms that's just been opened!

Sexually motivated assaults have a multitude of underlying motives.

In my experience it is a crime whose primary motivation is to exert power and control over the victim.

There may sometimes be an element of needing sexual gratification but these may from extreme sexual practices.

Just my opinion of course.