True Crime: Simon Levy London Double-Murder: The Car Park, The Stairwell, And The Investigation That Joined Three Cases

Three Women And Two London Scenes

The Case Built From Fragments

The first place was a car park.

Not a courtroom. Not a press conference. Not a police appeal. A car park in Tottenham, the kind of public space people pass through without thinking much about what it might hide.

Later, another place would matter: a stairwell in a largely disused block of flats in south-east London. Later still, the two places would be joined in one Old Bailey trial, along with the account of a third woman who survived an alleged attack and cannot be named for legal reasons.

At the start, the picture was not complete. It was a woman with a broken collarbone. Then a woman found unresponsive on an estate in Walworth. Then another woman found in Tottenham months later.

This article follows how prosecutors say those separate events became one case: a January allegation, a March death, an August death, DNA, CCTV, prior convictions, a police investigation that closed too early, and a defendant who says the central allegation against him is wrong.

The question is not whether the story sounds frightening. The question at trial is narrower and harder: what can the evidence prove?

The Life Before the Case

The public record gives only limited detail about the private lives of Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo and Sheryl Wilkins. That matters. In active trials, the women at the center of a case often become known through the places they were found, the charges that followed, and the arguments lawyers make about them.

Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo was 53. The Crown Prosecution Service described her as a woman from Colombia when it announced the decision to prosecute Simon Levy for her murder. Police said she was found at a property on the Aylesbury Estate in SE17 on March 17, 2025. Paramedics attended, but she was pronounced dead at the scene.

Sheryl Wilkins was 39. She was found on High Road, Tottenham, on August 24, 2025. At first, those facts could be read as separate entries in London’s long catalogue of serious violence: different parts of the city, different months, different scenes.

The surviving woman is protected by law and cannot be named. Reporting from the Old Bailey says she had addiction issues and was doing sex work at the time of the alleged January attack. Those facts are legally relevant because prosecutors say vulnerability was part of how the alleged offending worked. They must not become a way of reducing her credibility or humanity.

The case begins, then, with a record that is both specific and incomplete. It gives names, ages, locations, and charges. It gives less about ordinary life before the case machinery arrived.

That absence is part of the story.

The People Around Them

Simon Levy was 40 when the case reached trial. He is from Beaufoy Road, Tottenham, and is now on trial at the Old Bailey. He denies two counts of murder, two counts of rape, grievous bodily harm with intent, and non-fatal suffocation against the surviving woman.

The prosecution is led by Tom Little KC. The defense case, advanced by Siobhan Grey KC, is that Levy had sex with the three women but did not harm or kill them. That distinction is central. In a case like this, the jury is not being asked whether the accused met the women. It is being asked whether the prosecution has proved serious criminal violence and murder.

Police, too, sit inside the story. The Metropolitan Police treated the deaths of Carmenza and Sheryl, and the alleged January attack, as part of one joined investigation. In November 2025, Commander Clair Kelland said the investigation was complex and appealed for victim-survivors or people with information to come forward.

The surviving woman’s account sits at the beginning of the timeline. Carmenza’s death sits in the middle. Sheryl’s death sits at the point where the earlier incidents were no longer seen as isolated.

The trial is built around that alleged pattern. The defense says the pattern does not prove murder.

That is where the legal pressure begins.

The First Cracks

The first alleged attack came on January 21, 2025, in Tottenham. The surviving woman later told police that she went with a man to a B&M car park after a discussion about sex for money. She said she asked for payment first, and that the encounter then became violent.

Her account, played in a police interview at the Old Bailey, described being pinned, having her face covered, struggling to breathe, and losing consciousness. The court also heard that she suffered a broken collarbone. The graphic force of the allegation is not included here for drama. It matters because prosecutors say the method and location became significant later.

Four days after the alleged attack, she told police she had been raped. At that point, she had been arrested in an unrelated matter and was on her way to hospital for treatment. Reporting from the trial says she was not well enough to be interviewed fully because she was withdrawing from drugs.

This is the first place where the case becomes more than a sequence of alleged violence. The court has heard that uncertainty over timing, lack of a full interview, and difficulty locating the woman later affected what officers felt they could do.

A complaint existed. An injury existed. A location existed.

The investigation did not yet have enough to become the case prosecutors now say it should have become.

The Last Ordinary Movements

The next fixed point is March 17, 2025. Police were called to reports of an unresponsive woman at a property on the Aylesbury Estate in Walworth. Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo was found in a stairwell area, and a post-mortem examination was initially unable to determine a cause of death.

At the Old Bailey, prosecutors said the block where Carmenza was found was largely disused, with few residents or passers-by apart from occasional security patrols. They also alleged that Levy had travelled to the area the day before and that the killing happened during the course of a sexual encounter. Levy denies that allegation.

That is a key legal boundary. The court has not yet returned a verdict. The prosecution’s claim is that an encounter became a murder. The defense position is that Levy did not harm her.

Levy was arrested on April 1, 2025, on suspicion of Carmenza’s murder. The Met later said he was released under investigation while inquiries continued, including further tests related to cause of death.

The stairwell did not answer the case by itself. It became important because of what prosecutors say was later found around it, and because of what happened months afterward in Tottenham.

The First Alarm

On August 24, 2025, Sheryl Wilkins was found in Tottenham. The Guardian reported that prosecutors said CCTV showed Levy walking with Sheryl to a car park and disappearing behind a wall. Tom Little KC told the jury that nobody else went behind that wall. Levy denies killing her.

The Standard reported that Sheryl was found by police near High Road, Tottenham, at about 6:30 a.m., in the same car park where the January rape allegedly took place. The court heard that the cause of death for both Carmenza and Sheryl was unascertained.

That matters because this is not a case where the medical evidence alone is being presented as a simple answer. Prosecutors are asking the jury to look at accumulation: locations, contact, DNA, CCTV, alleged similarities, and what happened before and after.

Levy was arrested on September 4 in connection with Sheryl’s death and re-arrested in connection with Carmenza’s death. He was charged with Sheryl’s murder on September 7. While in custody, police also charged him in relation to the alleged January attack.

The alarm, by then, was no longer about one scene. It was about whether three scenes were speaking to each other.

The Search for an Explanation

Early explanations in cases like this often begin with what is easiest to prove. A woman is found unresponsive. A cause of death is not immediately established. A suspect is arrested, questioned, and released under investigation. Another woman is later found dead.

That sequence can look uncertain because it was uncertain. The Met said additional testing remained ongoing after Carmenza’s post-mortem failed to determine a cause of death. A body, by itself, did not immediately produce a clean forensic answer.

The prosecution now asks the jury to see the uncertainty differently. It argues that the January, March, and August events form a pattern of attacks against vulnerable women. The defense argues that sex with three women over eight months does not prove intent to harm or kill.

That is the split between public instinct and courtroom proof. Public instinct may see repetition and jump to guilt. Courtroom proof has to show why the repetition is evidence rather than coincidence, prejudice, or hindsight.

The first explanation was fragmented. One allegation. One death without an immediate cause. One later death.

The trial exists because prosecutors say the fragments now point in one direction.

The Evidence That Did Not Fit

The evidence, as reported from court, does not rest on one object. It is a set of strands.

Prosecutors say Levy’s blood was found on a pipe in the stairwell area near where Carmenza was found, and that his DNA was also found on her body. The court has also heard that Sheryl’s blood was detected on both cuffs of a blue North Face jacket found at Levy’s home after his arrest over her death.

The August CCTV evidence is another strand. Prosecutors say it showed Levy walking with Sheryl to the car park and disappearing behind a wall, with no one else going behind that wall before she was found.

The surviving woman’s identification is a further strand. The court heard that she knew the man from the neighborhood, gave details matching Levy, and later picked him out in an identification parade.

Evidence StrandWhy It MattersSurviving Woman’s AccountProsecutors say it shows an earlier alleged attack with similar features.Carmenza DNA EvidenceThe court heard Levy’s DNA and blood linked him to the March scene.Sheryl CCTV EvidenceProsecutors say footage narrowed who was with Sheryl before she was found.Jacket EvidenceSheryl’s blood was allegedly found on both cuffs of a jacket at Levy’s home.Prior ConvictionsThe jury was told of previous sexual assault convictions; the defense contests how far pattern evidence can go.

None of those strands removes the need for a verdict. Together, prosecutors say, they create a pattern.

The defense says the pattern is being overstated.

The Event at the Center of the Case

The central event is not one moment. It is the prosecution’s argument that three moments form one course of conduct.

The first is the alleged January attack in Tottenham. The surviving woman says an encounter in the B&M car park turned violent after she asked for money. She said she was pinned, her breathing was restricted, and she lost consciousness. She later reported the allegation but was not immediately able to give a full account.

The second is Carmenza’s death in Walworth. Police found her at the Aylesbury Estate on March 17. Prosecutors allege Levy travelled to the area the previous day and that Carmenza was killed during a sexual encounter. The court has heard DNA evidence links him to her, but the reported medical position is that cause of death was unascertained.

The third is Sheryl’s death in Tottenham. Prosecutors allege CCTV showed Levy and Sheryl going into the car park area, and that no one else went behind the wall before she was found. The court also heard that blood later linked to Sheryl was found on Levy’s jacket.

The defense position is direct: Levy had sexual encounters with the women but did not harm or kill them. That means the jury must decide whether the prosecution has proved violence, causation, intent, and responsibility beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence can place, link, suggest, and narrow. It cannot read private thought. It cannot replace the jury’s task.

That is why the trial turns on accumulation.

When the Story Broke Open

The case became public in stages. In September 2025, Levy was charged with the murder of Sheryl Wilkins and with offences relating to the alleged January attack. In November, he was charged with the murder of Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo.

The Met then made a broader appeal. Detectives said there could be people with information relevant to the investigation, or people who had not yet reported incidents that had directly affected them. Commander Clair Kelland tied the appeal to the Met’s work on public protection and violence against women and girls.

That appeal changed the shape of the story. It was not just a charging update. It was a signal that police believed the alleged offending might be wider than the charges already before the court.

The Old Bailey opening pushed the case further into public view. The Guardian reported that prosecutors told jurors Levy had convictions for sexual offences dating back to 2018 and more recent convictions involving six women.

The public version is simple: a man is accused of murdering two women and attacking a third.

The court version is more demanding: which evidence is admissible, what it proves, what it cannot prove, and whether alleged similarities are strong enough to support the charges.

The Case Built from Fragments

The jury is not being asked whether Simon Levy is an unpleasant person or whether his past convictions are disturbing. It is being asked whether the Crown has proved the specific charges in this trial.

That distinction matters because prosecutors have placed pattern at the center of the case. The court has heard that Levy has previous convictions for sexual assault, including two sexual assaults committed in 2018 and 11 sexual assaults after a February 2026 trial.

Pattern evidence can be powerful when independent facts line up. It can help a jury assess whether alleged similarities are coincidence or part of a repeated method. But pattern evidence also has limits. It must not become a shortcut that says prior wrongdoing proves current guilt.

The defense argument, as reported by The Guardian, is that consensual sexual intercourse with three women across eight months does not mean Levy intended to harm or kill them. That is the defense’s attempt to separate contact from criminal causation.

The prosecution’s answer is that the contacts were not neutral. It says the women were vulnerable, the circumstances were similar, and the physical and forensic evidence ties Levy to what happened.

The trial therefore asks a hard question: when does a set of fragments stop being coincidence and become proof?

The Outcome That Did Not End the Story

There is not yet an outcome. As of July 4, 2026, the Old Bailey trial is ongoing, and Levy has pleaded not guilty to the murder, rape, GBH, and suffocation charges reported in the case.

That means the legal language must remain precise. Levy is accused. Prosecutors allege. The court has heard. The defense disputes. The jury has not yet decided.

The latest trial reporting has focused not only on the deaths of Carmenza and Sheryl, but also on the earlier rape investigation. The Independent reported that the January rape investigation was closed on June 8, 2025, after police had been unable to obtain a full interview and concluded they had made significant attempts to speak to the complainant.

That detail does not prove the later charges. It does raise a public-interest question about how allegations involving homeless, addicted, trafficked, or otherwise vulnerable women are investigated when a complainant is hard to reach, unwell, or unable to provide a neat statement on the system’s timetable.

The verdict will answer legal questions.

It may not answer every institutional one.

The Aftermath People Still Argue About

Even before a verdict, the case already carries an aftermath. The police appeal, the joined investigation, and the evidence about a closed rape inquiry have all made the case about more than one defendant and three alleged victims.

Detective Sergeant Nina Muchamore told jurors that officers did “very little” apart from checking CCTV after the January allegation because they did not have enough clarity about timing and the complainant was not fit to provide more information. The court also heard the team was managing about 150 rape investigations.

That evidence deserves careful handling. It is easy to use hindsight as a weapon. Officers were dealing with an unwell complainant, unclear timing, limited CCTV coverage, and difficulty maintaining contact. Those constraints are real.

But the consequence is also real. The prosecution now says the January allegation was the beginning of a sequence that later included two deaths. If the jury accepts that account, the question of early investigative limits will become harder to ignore.

The case is therefore not only about evidence against Levy. It is also about whether systems built around victim cooperation can protect people whose lives are too unstable to cooperate in the expected way.

That argument will not be decided by outrage.

It will be sharpened by the evidence.

The Review, Appeal, or Unanswered Question

The unanswered question at this stage is the trial itself. There is no appeal because there is no verdict. There is no sentence because the jury has not convicted. There is no legal closure because the process is still active.

What is unresolved is not only whether Levy is guilty of the charges. It is also how the jury will treat the prosecution’s pattern case, the medical uncertainty over cause of death, the alleged DNA and blood evidence, the CCTV account, the surviving woman’s delayed full statement, and the defense claim that contact does not prove violence.

The cause of death issue is especially important. Reporting from the Old Bailey says both women’s causes of death were unascertained. That does not end a murder case. Murder can be proved through circumstantial evidence. But it does mean the Crown must persuade the jury through the wider pattern of proof rather than a simple medical mechanism.

The public may want one decisive answer. A courtroom usually works differently. It breaks the story into elements: identity, conduct, intent, causation, reliability, reasonable doubt.

The question still sitting over the trial is whether those elements lock together.

Why The Car Park And Stairwell Still Matter

The car park and the stairwell matter because they are not just locations. They are the places where vulnerability, evidence, and legal uncertainty meet.

The car park matters because the surviving woman says she was attacked there in January, and because Sheryl Wilkins was later found in the same area. The stairwell matters because Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo was found there in March, in a largely disused block where prosecutors say Levy had local knowledge from previously living nearby.

Together, those places ask the jury to decide whether the case is three separate events being tied together too aggressively, or one pattern that was visible only after the final pieces arrived.

The strongest true-crime writing does not pretend uncertainty is weakness. In an active trial, uncertainty is the point. It is where evidence is tested, where allegations either become proof or fail to do so, and where vulnerable people are either believed too late, believed wrongly, or not believed at all.

Carmenza and Sheryl should not be remembered only as names inside a charge sheet. The surviving woman should not be remembered only as a witness. Each entered the public record through violence alleged by others and evidence argued in court.

The trial will decide what the law can prove.

The places remain because they show what the law must try to understand.