Carmenza Valencia Trujillo’s unexplained death becomes disturbing long before investigators can prove it was murder. A foreign DNA profile links her to a man already identified by another vulnerable woman who said he had sexually assaulted her and nearly suffocated her, while Oyster card records place that same man near Carmenza when she died. Building the case through these converging details gives the account a strong investigative structure, with each new connection making Simon Levy’s continued freedom increasingly difficult to understand.
The chronology is particularly effective because Levy is not introduced merely as a suspect who suddenly appears in 2025. His earlier history includes convictions for assaults on women, a sexual assault against a female police officer while imprisoned, repeated allegations involving women on London trains, surveillance footage connected to some of those incidents, arrests, release from prison, and further alleged offending. By laying out that progression before returning to the killings, the presentation makes institutional failure central to the story rather than treating Levy’s crimes as isolated events.
Anna’s case provides the clearest example of how vulnerability complicated an investigation without making the alleged attack any less serious. Her homelessness, heroin dependence, inconsistent recollection of the date, and difficulty remaining in contact with police are presented as practical obstacles, while the account also stresses that she had identified her attacker and supplied information about where he lived. That distinction is important and relatively thoughtful, although the narrator’s broader conclusion that virtually everything else was simply the police’s fault is more categorical than the evidence presented can fully establish.
The handling of Carmenza’s death also demonstrates why suspicion and proof are not interchangeable. Her post-mortem did not establish a definitive cause of death, leaving overdose as one possibility alongside suffocation or strangulation, and Levy was therefore released after his April arrest despite DNA and location evidence connecting him to her. The presentation is at its best when acknowledging that evidentiary problem, because it shows why an apparently obvious suspect could not automatically be charged with murder. Later developments are then framed around investigators accumulating enough evidence for a formal murder charge in November.
Cheryl Wilkins’ death gives the narrative its most devastating escalation. She was last seen with Levy near the same service yard where Anna had previously been attacked, and newly installed surveillance cameras captured their movements before Levy emerged alone; forensic testing also linked Cheryl to one of his jackets. The account argues persuasively from its own chronology that the repeated bail decisions, missed hearings, prior offending, and warnings about his risk of reoffending deserve close scrutiny. However, sarcastic commentary about police, bail conditions, Levy’s unemployment, pajamas, and social life sometimes substitutes ridicule for a more careful explanation of which agencies made which decisions and under what legal constraints.
That tonal problem extends to Levy himself. Descriptions such as “pervert,” jokes about his social life, and repeated mockery make the narrator’s disgust unmistakable, but they add little once the documented allegations and convictions have already established the seriousness of his conduct. More importantly, mentioning autism, dyslexia, severe learning difficulties, partial blindness, unemployment, and dependence on his mother alongside judgments about his inability to behave like a “typical adult male” risks blurring irrelevant personal characteristics with evidence of dangerousness. The strongest case against Levy comes from his actions, convictions, forensic links, surveillance evidence, and repeated offending, not from social awkwardness or disability.
The eventual convictions give the story a firm legal resolution: the account states that Levy was convicted in February 2026 of 11 sexual assaults and the assault on the prison officer, then found guilty in August of both murders and the attack on Anna before receiving a whole-life order and additional life sentences. Those outcomes provide substantial retrospective support for presenting Levy as responsible for the charged crimes. The closing speculation that he probably has additional murder victims is much weaker, however; the possibility may be understandable given the pattern described, but no evidence of unidentified homicide victims is supplied, and invoking an FBI definition of serial killing without explaining the definition adds unnecessary certainty to an already compelling documented case.
Pros
- Builds a clear chronology connecting Levy’s prior sexual offending, repeated arrests and releases, Anna’s assault, Carmenza’s death, and Cheryl’s murder.
- Explains the evidentiary difficulty surrounding Carmenza’s initially undetermined cause of death rather than treating suspicion alone as proof.
- Uses DNA, Oyster card movements, surveillance footage, prior identification, and later convictions to show how separate investigations eventually converged.
- Keeps attention on the particular vulnerability of the women Levy targeted without suggesting that addiction, homelessness, or sex work diminished the seriousness of the crimes against them.
Cons
- Sarcasm and repeated personal ridicule sometimes undermine the seriousness of the subject and replace analysis of institutional decision-making with easy punchlines.
- Sweeping blame directed at police and the wider justice system is not accompanied by enough detail about charging standards, bail authority, probation, prosecution decisions, or responsibility for individual failures.
- References to autism, learning difficulties, unemployment, living with his mother, and social awkwardness risk associating largely irrelevant personal characteristics with Levy’s criminal behavior.
- The suggestion that additional murder victims probably exist goes beyond the evidence presented, while the claimed FBI serial-killer classification is not properly explained.
A disturbing sequence of assaults, releases, investigative obstacles, and eventual murders becomes a powerful examination of how repeated warning signs can accumulate before decisive intervention occurs. The careful chronology and evidentiary links are highly effective, but stronger institutional analysis, less mockery, and greater restraint around unsupported speculation would make an already compelling account considerably more rigorous.
