GUILTY UK - Kayleigh Haywood, 15, Ibstock, Leicestershire, 13 November 2015 - #1

[artypie]

Were LH and SB even in the same house? Was SB listening at the walls and watching like a Peeping Tom from his window and spring into action when he saw Kayleigh leaving the other house?

I think you have a very good question there. Maybe the cctv came in handy for things other than watching the van?

 

[pappa rob]

Hi folks, I'm also a local new joiner waiting for activation . I have been following the case from here, particularly as it's a good place to pick up links to multiple news sources as they are released/published, so thank you Websleuths for that. I mainly joined because there were a couple of bits I could have clarified, but that won't be necessary now. N.B. I don't know any of the people concerned, having only lived here a couple of years.

Welcome to the group.

 

[YidArmyRach]

I can only think that LH might have admitted to a relationship and prior activity with Kayleigh but denied killing her. But if there are signs of rape, then the charges relate to different incidents... LH's prior to death and SB's at the point of death.

The only way we can really find out is to wait for further information.

From this new information I would conjecture that Kayleigh willingly met up with LH but at some point was accosted by SB, presumably without LH's knowledge (or his charges ought to reflect his knowledge, which they don't).

SB's FB says "single - male - interested in females" in the relationship status space. That doesn't necessarily mean he was only interested in females, not everyone is out of the closet, but everything I see fits with the declared status.

His FB has been described by people here as being the more 'normal' of the two men .... but I didn't see a lot of personal stuff on there to make any judgement? It seemed to be mostly business stuff on both his personal and business pages? You can't assume everything is 'good' just because some things are kept more private ... at the same time, privacy doesn't mean someone is hiding something bad.

Yes, that was the impression of people on here, but when looking at various comments from people who knew them, went to school with them and so on, there was a lot of consensus that both were weird and always had been.

Obviously FB posts are just rumour but these opinions were held by multiple people. What I also noticed was a few comments of people recalling having beaten up both men in the past and the incidents sounded quite nasty and sounded like they had been bullied as teenagers. Again, it can't be confirmed but adds to the opinion of at least one of them being a loner/'outcasts' - not just now, but when they were growing up too.

 

[Alyce]

Stephen Beadman, 28, wore a grey jumper and grey trousers in the dock and is accused of murder and rape on November 15

A second man, Luke Harlow, 27, also appeared in court wearing a grey jumper and grey trousers, and is charged with grooming on November 13 and two counts of sexual activity with a child between November 12 and 16.



The pair, both from George Avenue, Ibstock, appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court today and were remanded in custody. They will next appear at Leicester Crown Court on December 18.





http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...rape_and_murder_of_teenager_Kayleigh_Haywood/

 

[Alyce]

Today Beadman and Harlow appeared in court where they spoke only to give their names, addresses and dates of birth.

No application for bail was made.





http://www.itv.com/news/central/upd...-haywood-man-faces-court-charged-with-murder/

 

[Alyce]

Beadman, wearing a grey tracksuit top and bottoms, was the first to appear.

He spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address during the two-minute hearing.

He is accused of murdering and raping Kayleigh last Sunday.

Harlow, dressed in an identical tracksuit to Beadman, also spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address.

He is accused of grooming Kayleigh on November 13 and sexual activity with a child between November 12 and November 16.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kayleigh-haywood-two-men-appear-6866171

 

[still-searching]

Stephen Beadman, 28, wore a grey jumper and grey trousers in the dock and is accused of murder and rape on November 15

A second man, Luke Harlow, 27, also appeared in court wearing a grey jumper and grey trousers, and is charged with grooming on November 13 and two counts of sexual activity with a child between November 12 and 16.



The pair, both from George Avenue, Ibstock, appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court today and were remanded in custody. They will next appear at Leicester Crown Court on December 18.





http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...rape_and_murder_of_teenager_Kayleigh_Haywood/

I know it's perhaps pedantic, but if SB is being accused of murdering KH on the 15th then surely LH's charges should be "...between 12th and 15th" ? As they don't believe she was alive on the 16th?

 

[Alyce]

From the msm articles above, it looks as though the police have a definite date for Kayleigh's murder, so one of them must have said something.

 

[Tortoise]

Beadman, wearing a grey tracksuit top and bottoms, was the first to appear.

He spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address during the two-minute hearing.

He is accused of murdering and raping Kayleigh last Sunday.

Harlow, dressed in an identical tracksuit to Beadman, also spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address.

He is accused of grooming Kayleigh on November 13 and sexual activity with a child between November 12 and November 16.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kayleigh-haywood-two-men-appear-6866171

sexual activity on 12th?! that is the day before they met, perhaps they had another meeting?

 

[Alyce]

I know it's perhaps pedantic, but if SB is being accused of murdering KH on the 15th then surely LH's charges should be "...between 12th and 15th" ? As they don't believe she was alive on the 16th?

I know. They often do this dont they, when in reality those dates are not possible, given SBs charge.

 

[Tortoise]

From the msm articles above, it looks as though the police have a definite date for Kayleigh's murder, so one of them must have said something.

was she held captive on the Saturday night? why no charge for kidnap I wonder.

 

[Alyce]

sexual activity on 12th?! that is the day before they met, perhaps they had another meeting?

This is why I think these sexual activity charges can be for on line or phone contact - as well as actual physical contact.
It doesnt make sense to me, that LH would be charged with two counts of sexual activity, unless there is some on line or phone evidence of the contact.
I doubt LH is going to be telling police that he abused Kayleigh twice.

 

[Alyce]

was she held captive on the Saturday night? why no charge for kidnap I wonder.

So - she meets and stays with LH Friday. Texts or phones parents on Saturday to say she is staying over another night with friend.
Stays again with LH on the Saturday and then is attacked by SB on the Sunday

The charge date is quite definite so the police must have something from either LH or SB or both to be able to be so specific.

 

[Tortoise]

It seems then that the reports of the phone being found on the Saturday are false. Unless LH had gone by then and she was held captive by SB overnight. But then there is no charge for false imprisonment. So its a circle of mystery.

I think I go with the phone being found after the Saturday and Kayleigh willingly staying an extra night.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Beadman, wearing a grey tracksuit top and bottoms, was the first to appear.

He spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address during the two-minute hearing.

He is accused of murdering and raping Kayleigh last Sunday.

Harlow, dressed in an identical tracksuit to Beadman, also spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth and address.

He is accused of grooming Kayleigh on November 13 and sexual activity with a child between November 12 and November 16.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kayleigh-haywood-two-men-appear-6866171

also from that link, they gave their address, and LH is called 'neighbour' - presumably that clears up the fact that one lived at number 5 and one at number 7. and:

"They will appear at Leicester Crown Court on December 18."

 

[Alyce]

It seems then that the reports of the phone being found on the Saturday are false. Unless LH had gone by then and she was held captive by SB overnight. But then there is no charge for false imprisonment. So its a circle of mystery.

I think I go with the phone being found after the Saturday and Kayleigh willingly staying an extra night.

The phone being found later than Saturday makes the most sense, although I still wonder - if it was SB/LH who disposed of it - why he/they left it so close to their homes. Unless it was genuinely dropped there and he/they did not realise this ?

As far as we know, LH lives at Number 7, so where would he go, other than perhaps to his parents house ? and if he did depart Ibstock on the Saturday, then why wouldnt Kayleigh have also left at the same time ?

And we know that both SB and LH posted messages on their FB pages on the Saturday afternoon, when Kayleigh was still alive, so seemingly all was well at that time ?

 

[Alyce]

also from that link, they gave their address, and LH is called 'neighbour' - presumably that clears up the fact that one lived at number 5 and one at number 7. and:

"They will appear at Leicester Crown Court on December 18."

Yes, I think it is fairly definite that LH must have lived at Number 7. That was the only other house searched and , as far as we know, there is no one else involved.
Plus he would have to give his registered address to the police/court so if he was still at home with parents, the Coalville address would have been stated.

( again, this brings up thoughts of Becky, with NM and his concealment of where he actually lived ! )

 

[Tortoise]

I'm curious about these back to back houses being occupied by two friends. None of the neighbours said anything about LH living in the other house, did they? IIRC it was all about SB.

Was the other house vacant? Did LH use it for the night and pretend it was his? Was he really just temporarily lodging with SB? Was LH able to afford a place of his own?

 

[jessie]

It seems then that the reports of the phone being found on the Saturday are false. Unless LH had gone by then and she was held captive by SB overnight. But then there is no charge for false imprisonment. So its a circle of mystery.

I think I go with the phone being found after the Saturday and Kayleigh willingly staying an extra night.

If I remember correctly, her parents didn't report her missing until Sunday?

 

[artypie]

charged with grooming on November 13 and two counts of sexual activity with a child between November 12 and 16.

maybe the range of dates is a legal thing intended to encompass the dates the offences occurred (pending the coroner's report?) and not necessarily indicating that activity actually happened on the 16th? grooming on Nov 13th would presumably be the date he first encouraged her to meet him, so 12th might again be one day wide for legal purposes. I'm not experienced in legal matters but it would seem reasonable to have a period of time within which the offences occurred.