She was found naked, with sperm heads and semen deposits on her clothing and body, murdered in what was originally described as a "frenzied" attack.
Her body left with her mutilated breast on display for whoever found her, her hands tied behind her back with her own trousers.
The investigating team dropped the "potentially sexually motivated attack" approach after the first DNA results were returned.
All of the original evidence available to them suggested a sexually motivated attack. The big question is, why did they drop that line of reasoning when the developing evidence supported it?