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

[Alyce]

So yesterday the consensus was LH was the baddy because he liked horror movies but now SB is the bad man and LH isn't totally evil anymore - I wonder if how their families reacted has influenced peoples thoughts?

I really think they were both involved in it but there is only enough evidence for SB to get a murder charge right now - forensics such as blood in his house perhaps. I think LH maybe "confessed" to meeting her and having consensual (not really as she is u16) touchy feely stuff but is denying any involvement in the murder. They'll probably both get more charges chucked at them once all the evidence becomes clearer.

Doesn't really make sense that LH would just be grooming a young girl but then out of the blue his close friend ends up killing her, does it?

My thoughts as well, at the moment.

I think, based on the time that Kayleigh's body was taken to the mortuary yesterday ( 2pm ? ) and the time limit for charging or releasing SB and LH, that the police have done the very best they can with the charges, for now.

I fully expect further charges once a full PM has been completed and further evidence is found ( no doubt tests being done atm ).

However, I also wonder, will LH be remanded today or are the current charges not strong enough for that ?

 

[Sillybilly]

Catching up on Kayleigh's thread here and have a couple of little reminders ... we don't sleuth family members of either victim or perp, we don't discuss orientation unless it is germane to the case, and we don't discuss PMs on the board.

:tyou:

 

[Alyce]

Respectfully snipped.

This is the scenario that came to my mind too. It seems the most likely given what we know atm.

If SB and LH didn't get much female attention I could definitely see them discussing LH and Kayleigh meeting up before and after.

I've seen men with this kind of mentality all too often. When a woman is involved with their friend they believe that she should like him too. When she doesn't they get offended, feel wronged and get angry. Sometimes of course that leads to the worst.


Hopefully we'll have more information soon

This has made me think of another recent case, still in the news from time to time. Ched Evans ( the footballer ) and his friend. Friend being found not guilty of rape as the sex was deemed to be consensual, with CE being found guilty of rape as being ruled the victim did not consent.

 

[Alyce]

I'm not sure what the age of consent is there, but if she was under that age it would be considered rape. In the States even if she's over the age of consent it's still rape if the age difference is over 4 years. I'm not familiar with the laws there so who knows.

She was just 15 by a few months, so definately rape here as under age.

 

[Alyce]

you are right, it is different over here.
but my main point of discussion was how the police have been able to distinguish between rape and sexual activity in this case. unless there is a witness.

My take is that the police have charged LH with as much as they can at the moment. I am not even sure either of them has admitted to anything.
There was some discussion last night re what constitutes a charge of sexual activity and could it be on line activity only.
The fact that LH has been charged with TWO counts makes me think that maybe this does refer to some on line contact, or photos taken of Kayleigh, as how on earth would the police be able to say TWO charges otherwise. I doubt LH is going to admit to doing something twice, doesnt make sense to me.

 

[sar2them1984]

I think you can be verified as a local and can then post what you know? Speak to an admin

Yep that also allows us to ask you questions without you having to find links to back up all your answers

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

'There are new offences of sexual activity with a child under 16. These cover a range of behaviour, involving both physical and non-physical contact.'

To combat increasing sexual approaches to children on-line, there is a new offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. This makes it a crime to befriend a child on the Internet or by other means and meet or intend to meet the child with the intention of abusing them. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/

So a sexual activity charge can also be non-physical. Maybe sexual, graphic talk through FB or nude pictures / videos perhaps...

:goodpost:

Ah, so this could explain the Two counts charge, as it very well may be based solely on the fact that LH met Kayleigh, following the grooming.

 

[sar2them1984]

My take is that the police have charged LH with as much as they can at the moment. I am not even sure either of them has admitted to anything.
There was some discussion last night re what constitutes a charge of sexual activity and could it be on line activity only.
The fact that LH has been charged with TWO counts makes me think that maybe this does refer to some on line contact, or photos taken of Kayleigh, as how on earth would the police be able to say TWO charges otherwise. I doubt LH is going to admit to doing something twice, doesnt make sense to me.

Perhaps they'd met up before and there's some kind of evidence of this?

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

I've been following the thread for while, but I've been unable to comment as I've been waiting for my account to be activated... also didn't wish to break any rules with what I post.

This is a very local case to me, so I am familiar with all the areas (sorry wanted to help before when you were discussing location but I just couldn't comment). The whole community is very saddened by Kayleigh's death.

This is the bit I am not sure I can post about: Most people of a similar age to the accused will have gone to school with SB and LH due to how small our community is (me included). Therefore a lot of us local people have mutual friends and / or knew the two in question. Therefore what I post could perhaps be slightly unbiased due to knowing them or knowing of them. Is this the case?

Hello RainbowSkies and :wagon:

 

[Alyce]

Perhaps they'd met up before and there's some kind of evidence of this?

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Very good point.

 

[Amonet]

you are right, it is different over here.
but my main point of discussion was how the police have been able to distinguish between rape and sexual activity in this case. unless there is a witness.

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.

 

[Finkleyalex]

I'm doubtful that Luke took KayLeigh back to HIS home to stay the night so I'm wondering if Luke could've arranged to stay at Stephen's with KayLeigh. Then in the morning KayLeigh and Luke both left - KayLeigh calls her parents to let them know she's fine. Luke goes back to HIS home - Stephen then follows Kayleigh and commits the crime. OR maybe Luke left KayLeigh at Stephen's house (maybe Stephen said he'd give her a lift home/to friends house) but as Luke hasn't been charged with ANYTHING relating to Kayleigh's death then I would assume he had a solid alibi - such as being at home with parents etc ...

I think this is absolutely what happened. LH used SB's house so as not to attract attention about having a young-looking KH at his house. I think LH and KH then had consensual sexual activity and SB was jealous - maybe LH rubbed it in his face/made comments as well? Then SB offered to drop KH home or LH left early and SB then made some advances towards KH which were rejected perhaps and out of rage he lost the plot.

 

[Finkleyalex]

:goodpost:

Ah, so this could explain the Two counts charge, as it very well may be based solely on the fact that LH met Kayleigh, following the grooming.

I would have thought that the two charges referred to having conducted the sexual activity on two occasions? Though criminal law isn't my area of expertise.

 

[Tortoise]

you are right, it is different over here.
but my main point of discussion was how the police have been able to distinguish between rape and sexual activity in this case. unless there is a witness.

Perhaps there is evidence at the house of a condom used by LH, but no protection used by SB?

Also as someone else has pointed out, IF Kayleigh phoned home, and was in no danger at that point.

 

[Tortoise]

Another thing - we don't know what else was found on Kayleigh's phone. She may have taken non-incriminating photos during her evening with LH or the following morning to show her friend later.

It might help if we knew where her phone was actually found. One report I've read says Melbourne Road which is the main A road through Ibstock I believe, yet other reports say in the park. Details we are not going to find out until trial.

 

[Tortoise]

My theory at this point is that SB made an advance on Kayleigh and she rejected him. I have heard reference to a weapon on someone's fb, which may or may not be true, but it suggests to me that if it is true, this would have been taken purposely (from the home) after such a rejection.

I'm thinking of a scenario where Kayleigh leaves the house, is walking along the road or through the park to get away, and has been followed by SB, leading to her dropping her phone in an altercation.

I don't know how this fits with LH's activities that morning/day.

 

[Tortoise]

Too many unknowns. Did Kayleigh leave both LH and SB at the house to make her own way home and SB make an excuse to leave in his van shortly after?

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?

 

[artypie]

I've been following the thread for while, but I've been unable to comment as I've been waiting for my account to be activated.

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.

 

[Tortoise]

Welcome aboard artypie and RainbowSkies.

 

[Alyce]

Another thing - we don't know what else was found on Kayleigh's phone. She may have taken non-incriminating photos during her evening with LH or the following morning to show her friend later.

It might help if we knew where her phone was actually found. One report I've read says Melbourne Road which is the main A road through Ibstock I believe, yet other reports say in the park. Details we are not going to find out until trial.

The statement I have seen the most is that the phone was found by a dog walker in the park.
But Melbourne Road runs alongside the park at one point, so I suppose both could be true if the phone was found at the edge of the park.