Peter Chapman set a “calculated and wicked” trap for teenager Ashleigh Hall. Joe Willis looks at how the convicted sex offender used deceit and lies to ensnare the 17-year-old.

LIKE most teenagers, Ashleigh Hall’s interests revolved around her mobile phone and her computer.

It was these devices that she used to communicate via social networking sites with her friends.

And it was through one of these sites, Facebook, that she and Peter Chapman first made contact.

On September 21, last year, Chapman added Ashleigh as a friend on his Facebook account.

Her profile cannot be recovered, but fragments of the file have been revealed by a computer expert.

They show that Ashleigh had clearly stated that she was born on January 10, 1992, which made her 17 at the time. She had told the truth.

Chapman’s Facebook profile was also recovered from Ashleigh’s computer.

However, it was not his photograph that police found staring back at them from the screen.

While Chapman is plain looking and could pass for older than his 33 years, the picture on his profile is of a bare-chested and good looking boy in his late teens.

It is this handsome alter-ego that Chapman used to entice Ashleigh into meeting him.

On October 19, 2009, the computer expert uncovered the first evidence of direct communication between the pair.

Although they met online on Facebook, they mainly communicated on a site known as Tagged.com or by using Microsoft Windows Live Messenger.

From October 19 to October 24, last year, there is evidence of regular online contact between the pair on these sites.

By October 23, Ashleigh had given Chapman her mobile number and the pair were in contact by text messages.

These messages show that Chapman was trying to make arrangements to meet Ashleigh.

They also reveal that he was obsessed with sex.

The pair arranged to meet for the first time on October 23 in Green Lane, Darlington. However, Chapman failed to turn up.

Ashleigh’s friends said that in the days before she disappeared, the 17-year-old was “giddy” and “excited” about her new acquaintance.

She admitted to one friend that she planned to meet a 19- year-old boy who had a Facebook page and who had been sending her suggestive messages.

What she did not know is that the teenager she hoped to meet was actually a 33-year-old man who was living out of the back of his car.

Chapman also realised that Ashleigh was expecting to meet an attractive 19-year-old. Even in a dark location, the prospects of him getting her into his car would be slim. He needed a plan.

Having invented 19-year-old Peter to make contact with girls, Chapman now decided to invent Peter’s dad.

Andrew Robertson QC, prosecuting, described the plan in court as “calculated and wicked”.

“And it worked,” he added.

Chapman had two phones.

On one he pretended to be 19- year-old Peter.

On the other, he was 19-yearold Peter’s father.

Using the two phones, he managed to convince Ashleigh that it would be an older man, his father, who would pick her up from her home in Warwick Square, Darlington.

At 7.34pm on Sunday, October 25, he used his second phone to text “Hi hun its pete’s dad are you sure you don’t mind me picking you up? Pete is really looking foreward (sic) to seeing you and yes its ok for you to stay.”

In reply she wrote: “No its fine I dnt mind I trust him so I trust u and thank u.”

At 7.40pm, Ashleigh sent a text which read: “Yeh could u come now please from Ashleigh.”

At 7.42pm, CCTV images show Chapman’s car leaving the Little Chef and Travelodge car park, between the A177 and A689, at Sedgefield, where he had been parked while sending these texts.

At 7.45pm, Chapman sent a message saying: “Me dad’s on his way babe he says excuse the state of him lol He’s been at work lol he doesn’t have to come in and meet your mum does he lol he’ll be a mess probably lol oh and are you wearin some sexy underwear for me hehe x.”

Ashleigh replied: “Okaii babe and no he doesn’t lol and its okaii haha, wat car he got and u will have to wait and see wnt u ;) x x .”

After picking Ashleigh up at her home, Chapman drove her towards Stockton on the A66, but then turned north onto the A177.

With the teenager apparently unaware of what was about to happen, he drove her up the A177 where, eventually, he pulled into a dark and secluded lay-by near Thorpe Larches, close to the Little Chef car park where he had been parked earlier in the evening.

It was here that Chapman sexually assaulted the teenager and where she probably met her death.

It is now known that the defendant had previously visited a number of other locations in the area, most likely to find a suitable secluded location for the attack. Several, including Knotty Hill Golf Centre, were logged into his satellite navigation system.

Chapman would have known that all the sites would have been deserted on a Sunday evening.

Information from mobile phone masts suggests Chapman and Ashleigh remained in the area of Thorpe Larches until 11.54pm.

By that time it is believed that Ashleigh was dead and her killer had dumped her body.

After the killing, Chapman returned to Teesside. However, it is now known that he revisited the area the following day.

At about 5.30pm on the Monday, the defendant was arrested by police for motoring offences.

At this stage, the police had no idea that he was responsible for the murder of Ashleigh Hall. The teenager had not even been reported missing.

Her friends and family were still trying to contact her by sending text messages and ringing her mobile.

At the police station, Chapman was put into a cell and his car was taken away.

On the floor there was a bag containing Ashleigh’s clothes and belongings. Next to it was a screwed-up length of used duct tape. A used condom was also later found in the car.

Chapman realised that sooner or later the police were going to hear about a missing girl and were likely to link him and his car to her disappearance.

Aware that the police had items in the vehicle that would incriminate him, Chapman decided to admit that he had killed Ashleigh, but said it had been an accident.

Just after 7.30pm on the day after Ashleigh’s death, when the detention officer was making a routine round of the cell, the defendant said he wanted to talk to someone from CID as he had “killed someone”.

He was taken into a custody suite, where he added: “I need to tell someone where the body is because it hasn’t been reported yet. They are going to need to take my phone from my property.”

He told one detective at this time: “We had an argument, I taped her mouth with gaffer tape but it covered her nose as well. I didn’t realise until it was too late. The gaffer tape is in the car. I tried to get her to breathe again, she wouldn’t.”

Police believe this reference to an argument was a calculated attempt to cover up the mur- Peter Chapman set a “calculated and wicked” trap for teenager Ashleigh Hall. Joe Willis looks at how the convicted sex offender used deceit and lies to ensnare the 17-year-old der. After leaving Chapman in his cell, the detective switched on a phone which the accused had in his possession.

It was Ashleigh’s phone and the detective immediately received a call from the teenager’s mother. It then became apparent who the teenager was that Chapman was admitting to killing.

The defendant was taken from Middlesbrough Police Station to show detectives where he had left Ashleigh’s body.

He told police: “The girl should be laid towards the fence. When I eventually managed to get the tape off her mouth she just fell down.”

At this point, he was arrested for murder.

In response, he said: “I knew it was coming that is why I had to tell you today.

“I just couldn’t leave her like that. I knew someone would find her. Has anyone told the family?

“All I have been doing is driving round all day. I just want to say sorry to her family.”

Police say this was a lie and it was just part of the plan he had hatched to avoid responsibility.

Chapman later said in a statement that in the course of an argument he had put tape around her mouth and head once.

As this did not quieten her, he said he put more tape around her hands and mouth and also, accidentally, her nose.

He then claimed she fell down the bank to where her body was found. However, prosecutors said these again were lies.

Forensic experts found bruises on her face consistent with being slapped. She had further bruises on her neck, scull and torso which suggested there had been a struggle.

Experts concluded that the teenager had been smothered to death, probably by having her nose and mouth covered with tape.

Tests showed the tape had been wound round Ashleigh’s face five or six times that formed a mask of almost 8cm from the bottom of her face.

Her arms were bound eight times. This was no accident, they concluded.

Police used the scientific evidence to suggest a logical sequence of events.

They said that on arrival at Thorpe Larches, it dawned on Ashleigh that she was not meeting the teenager Pete, that the defendant was not Pete’s dad and that she had been kidnapped.

At the dark and isolated location, she must have been terrified.

Prosecutors said it was inconceivable that she would consent to sex in those circumstances.

So Chapman bound her before raping her. It is then believed that he removed some of the tape to allow her to answer text messages sent to her phone by friends.

Police believe this was a deliberate act to suggest the sex was consensual.

Chapman alone knows why he killed Ashleigh. However, prosecutors believe he realised that if he let her live, she would be able to identify him to police.

She had seen his face, his car and had records on her phone and computer that would incriminate him.

So after she answered the texts, he deliberately placed further tape over her face which caused her to suffocate.

Finally, he disposed of her body. He claimed she had fallen down the gully, however police believe he removed the tape and then callously threw her body to where it was later found.