Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen getting into taxi outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #5 *ARREST*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If he claimed he had given her a lift but had dropped her off somewhere and they couldn't prove otherwise, could they still charge him?
I don’t know my point is if it his car and she did get in then why the need for ITV to pretend it had suddenly stumbled across this previously unknown footage. The police could have just told the magistrate they had it and there was no need to make it public. The only reason they should need to make it public is to appeal to the driver to come forward but they never did
 
I don’t know my point is if it his car and she did get in then why the need for ITV to pretend it had suddenly stumbled across this previously unknown footage. The police could have just told the magistrate they had it and there was no need to make it public. The only reason they should need to make it public is to appeal to the driver to come forward but they never did
Or it was to send some sort of message to the cyclist or the passing car.
 
I think it’s strange that they put out a request for grey beard man to come forward to eliminate him but they haven’t for the driver in cobweb video. This man was allegedly parked a few meters from LS so they must know she never got in the car.

I wonder if that is the business owners in that car who apparently left just after midnight it was said by their sister? So they may well have spoken already.
 
Didn’t ITV just release that video on their own?

Police may have already identified all they needed to know from their own copy beforehand. If they don’t ask for help, they usually do not need it, imo.

Yes, it has been stated that ITV obtained the footage in the first instance and agreed with police that they wouldn’t share it until they had time to view and analyse it.

I really don’t think they’re appealing for any information on the back of that video although I would assume any witnesses would be a bonus. IMHO they probably obtained more footage from another angle and know this is P and this is where the abduction charge came in. Unfortunately they’re now obviously building a case, reviewing more CCTV in the hope of gaining more evidence as to what happened thereafter especially if he is mainting he dropped her off somewhere and it was a straight forward ‘lift’. The only issue I have is surely if he had taken her back to the Welly or home CCTV would capture same, unless he has stated he did drop her somewhere remote then this will be more of a challenge for police to prove with limited CCTV.
 
Last edited:
Newbie here - hi.
Just to add - remember the late night search of the park bench. Sounds like hes saying he picked her up , they drove to the park , had a *advertiser censored* on the bench and then he left her there cos she said shed rather walk home.
The truth is obviously likely very different , it just needs the police to be able to prove it.
Very sad for Libby.
 
She also said she wants to come to England to see PR but can’t afford the air fare. Maybe she’s after a go fund me to raise 2k??

I doubt she ever heard of go fund me at the location she is at. She might be just genuinly poor. Let's just leave that struggling family alone. Must be hard for them as it is.
 
I’m quite concerned about the Astra situation too. Lots of people on here seem to think this is the key to the case and unfortunately I think they are wrong.

Everyone on this site has the best intentions in finding LS and finding out the truth of what has happened. There are lots of theories to try and understand and explain this but very little evidence to support most of these theories. The police have released little information and I feel they are as perplexed as the rest of us.

We need to look at what we KNOW about the Astra or Astras, as there appears to be more than one.
The first thing we actually know for certain is that PR has a Vauxhall Astra. From the photo of it on the transporter it appears to be silver or very light grey.

The second thing we know for certain is that in the cctv released today of LS outside the Welly a silver Vauxhall Astra drives past the queue of people waiting to get into the club. It does this at normal road speeds and at no time does the driver appear to slow down to look at anyone in the queue. There is no way of knowing if this Astra belongs to PR.

The other potential sightings of a Vauxhall Astra need to be discarded as they are not evidence and they are clouding people’s thoughts and leading to theories being made that are not supported by actual evidence.

The car in the cobweb cctv may or may not be a Vauxhall Astra. It has not been confirmed as such by anyone as far as I am aware. I do agree it is similar in size and the colour could be silver or light grey. I do not believe it is PR car and after comparing it to the Astra on the transporter I can definitely see the wheels are a different design. To my mind this car is a red herring and people need to discard it from their thoughts and concentrate on other evidence.
If the police believed this car was PR car they would have made much more of it.

I think to understand why this car has become such a focal point to all of us trying to make sense of what has happened to LS we need to take a step back and consider how the police came to suspect PR of possible involvement in her disappearance. I say possible as we do not know categorically that he is involved at all but all our wild theories are leading us into this line of thought.

This is my understanding of it.
The police are trawling through hours and hours of cctv trying to work out where LS went and how she got there. During this time I would imagine several vehicles kept cropping up as being in the area for a long period or acting suspiciously in some way. Most drivers would just be going about there normal business like going to or from work or a restaurant or cinema. But I dare say a few caused the police to make a few extra enquiries. Maybe they saw some known offenders vehicles or maybe known drug dealers or disqualified drivers. Maybe the ANPR flagged up some cars without insurance or tax. Maybe that’s how they hit on PR.
What I think happened then is that they did a PNC check on PR registration number and saw he was local ran other checks such as criminal records check. Maybe they come back with something maybe not.
To satisfy their curiosity they put his name in social media and hey presto there is his photo. Maybe one of the police doing the donkey work puts 2 and 2 together and thinks this looks like the flasher in the EFIT. And he lives bang in the middle of all the burglaries and flashing.
The police can’t believe their luck. This must be the guy let’s go and arrest him. So they take him in and take his prints and DNA and they get a match for some sex toy burglaries and some flashing in the area local to LS address but he says it’s not him but they hold him for 4 days hoping to find some evidence he is involved with LS disappearance but they don’t.

That is the only reason a Vauxhall Astra is relevant to this case and there is absolutely no evidence to connect PR to LS other than he owns an Astra.

There is no evidence connecting LS with a Vauxhall Astra.

I think the police have put everything into trying to find evidence that fits their theory instead of letting the evidence lead them to LS.
For the record I can see why the police went down this route and I can understand why many of us on here want it to be him but after 12 days I’m starting to wonder if the police haven’t put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
I truly hope they and some of you prove me wrong.

Thank you for very well written post. I have my doubts on some of the investigation too and your thoughts would support those strange statements from news that arrested PR is not the man seen in the CCTV.

PR does not seem typical hardened criminal we usually see arrested in serious crimes and neither from description of his character from people who know him (work collegues, shop keepers, neighbours), hence many people have doubts. Of course looks and manners could be deceiving.

Charges they brought upon him suddenly do sound ridiculous and I do wonder if any of them are really proven rather then based on loose evidence just to keep him in jail at all cost. I mean, charged with stealing 3 vibrators? Seriously Humbert police?

I do want to see how that indecent public thing, vouyerims and trespassing charges will be handled in court. I mean I am curious to know if they do have concrete evidence for all those and it is not all based just on loose e-fit image. If no real evidence, then only thing what could be proven with certainity would be stolen laptop and xbox/playstation.

With regards to PR and smoking man in the CCTV. Question would be, if it is not him, who is it? And why was not THat guy arrested rather then PR by now??? I have no doubt they have all intelligence gathered on that car and smoking guy by now. Again, if it is not the same person, would that mean PR picked Libby only after this smoking guy did?

You said to disregard that whole CCTV. We simply can't. I think due to location and timing, it is no coincidence and this CCTV is probably smoking gun for police.

So again, with regards to news claiming it is not the same guy, it might be your theory or otherwise I am clueless why they are stating that.

For any car buffs out there, can anyone analyze if towed PR car is exact same car as seen on CCTV with smoking guy? Can anyone be certain?
 
I can’t sleep.

I’m having a few issues about cobweb cctv.
The video released Tuesday of LS at the Welly was a copy that had been filmed on a device prior to the original being given to the police.
The cobweb video was released on the 8th just a few hours prior to the police having to apply to the magistrate for an extension to detain PR. Now this video was circulated via ITV not the police but this was not a copy of a monitor it was the actual footage from the camera.
This footage must have been given to ITV by the police as ITV would have had to turn it in as evidence if they had received it from the source. I think they did this so they could tell the magistrate that new footage had come to light possibly showing the suspect taking LS away in his car to guarantee the extension or PR probably would have walked.
The question this raises is if they know it’s not PR and the film is a red herring to convince the magistrate, why have they not appealed for the driver to come forward to eliminate him from the enquiry? Have they already done so? Or did LS get into a car but the driver was not PR?
If they really believed it was PR then surely he would not be a person of interest but an official suspect.
If it’s not PR who is it?

The footage was given to whichever news outlet (thought it was the sun) on the same day it was given to police (Sunday after LS went missing).

The police asked whichever media outlet it was not to release it straightaway.. They released it AFTER PR was arrested.

Likely the police havnt released it themselves as they identified exactly who is in that video so didn't need to put out a press appeal about it.

Its telling to me they released it AFTER PR was arrested to me that says they didn't want it out sooner as they possibly had him under surveillance and didn't want him spooking.

Why are you so convinced that isn't PR or LS in the car.

You keep saying they havnt charged him with abduction therefore hinting it can't be him...They have a threshold to meet they may be just short on evidence doesn't mean they have nothing at all!

If they had ruled him out completely already they would have said so.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.

The fact they have not put out the cctv themselves or appealed for the people in them to come forward makes me 100% sure they don't need to because they already know who they are.

They probably have proof she was in the car but he is saying he dropped her safely and they at the moment they can't prove conclusively that he is lying...doesn't mean he isn't.

I find it so frustrating if you look at what has happened logically and assume the police know more than we do (they so obviously do) then there is a valid reason they didn't publish it themselves or ask for information about it (they didn't need to).

As for the one released yesterday been filmed on a mobile phone. Assuming it was filmed on someone's mobile then emailed over to the mail and they've shown it like that to get it out there quickly. Hasn't clearer footage come.oit since which could mean the one they are now showing is directly from the camera.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for very well written post. I have my doubts on some of the investigation too and your thoughts would support those strange statements from news that arrested PR is not the man seen in the CCTV.

PR does not seem typical hardened criminal we usually see arrested in serious crimes and neither from description of his character from people who know him (work collegues, shop keepers, neighbours), hence many people have doubts. Of course looks and manners could be deceiving.

Charges they brought upon him suddenly do sound ridiculous and I do wonder if any of them are really proven rather then based on loose evidence just to keep him in jail at all cost. I mean, charged with stealing 3 vibrators? Seriously Humbert police?

I do want to see how that indecent public thing, vouyerims and trespassing charges will be handled in court. I mean I am curious to know if they do have concrete evidence for all those and it is not all based just on loose e-fit image. If no real evidence, then only thing what could be proven with certainity would be stolen laptop and xbox/playstation.

With regards to PR and smoking man in the CCTV. Question would be, if it is not him, who is it? And why was not THat guy arrested rather then PR by now??? I have no doubt they have all intelligence gathered on that car and smoking guy by now. Again, if it is not the same person, would that mean PR picked Libby only after this smoking guy did?

You said to disregard that whole CCTV. We simply can't. I think due to location and timing, it is no coincidence and this CCTV is probably smoking gun for police.

So again, with regards to news claiming it is not the same guy, it might be your theory or otherwise I am clueless why they are stating that.

For any car buffs out there, can anyone analyze if towed PR car is exact same car as seen on CCTV with smoking guy? Can anyone be certain?

Already been confirmed as the same make, model and colour by someone with a better knowledge of cars than most of us...in fact his knowledge is incredible.
 
just trying to catch up, but it's starting to seem to me that PR had an accomplice, or perhaps he was the accomplice. (they could be the 2 men harassing young women in reports from days earlier, as well as the "men's voices" heard). maybe that's why the police handed out flyers in different languages, to get a better look at the people in the area and what their native languages are. (perhaps PR has talked some, but barely knows the other guy, knows he's not british). i still don't like the fact that PR is a butcher, in addition to being a pervert. jmo, but what if he had met a like-minded perv on the dark web and they made a really sinister plan. maybe the other person (who PR is in this with) has her, and the police are trying to find that person now, but keeping it on the dl. hopefully the plan was haulted, since PR got arrested pretty early on, but it makes sense since she has disappeared without a trace. maybe it was to make money (by selling it on the dw) and satisfy their despicable urges. i really hate typing these ideas, but just putting it out there. hope they find her today!
 
There are two main car entrances.

One is right at the top North end of the park on Beverley road itself, #1 on the map pic.

The second entrance is at the end of Beresford Avenue, you can follow it on Google maps.

They both have parking and changing rooms.

On the map image, road mark with number 2 - would that car road be accessible by night to go through park??? I am curious as it leads directly to pond...
 
Newbie here - hi.
Just to add - remember the late night search of the park bench. Sounds like hes saying he picked her up , they drove to the park , had a *advertiser censored* on the bench and then he left her there cos she said shed rather walk home.
The truth is obviously likely very different , it just needs the police to be able to prove it.
Very sad for Libby.

Welcome to Websleuths yoyo1. Thank you for posting in Libby’s case thread.
 
I don’t know my point is if it his car and she did get in then why the need for ITV to pretend it had suddenly stumbled across this previously unknown footage. The police could have just told the magistrate they had it and there was no need to make it public. The only reason they should need to make it public is to appeal to the driver to come forward but they never did

The media outlet made (parts of it) public as they had bought it off the business owner they are well in their rights to release it.

They had it for maybe 5 days before they released it...so did the police.

They didn't just stumble across it.

The police put the facts to the magistrate when ask8ng for an extension...not what the media are showing.
 
The footage was given to whichever news outlet (thought it was the sun) on the same day it was given to police (Sunday after LS went missing).

The police asked whichever media outlet it was not to release it straightaway.. They released it AFTER PR was arrested.

Likely the police havnt released it themselves as they identified exactly who is in that video so didn't need to put out a press appeal about it.

Its telling to me they released it AFTER PR was arrested to me that says they didn't want it out sooner as they possibly had him under surveillance and didn't want him spooking.

Why are you so convinced that isn't PR or LS in the car.

You keep saying they havnt charged him with abduction therefore hinting it can't be him...They have a threshold to meet they may be just short on evidence doesn't mean they have nothing at all!

If they had ruled him out completely already they would have said so.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.

The fact they have not put out the cctv themselves or appealed for the people in them to come forward makes me 100% sure they don't need to because they already know who they are.

They probably have proof she was in the car but he is saying he dropped her safely and they at the moment they can't prove conclusively that he is lying...doesn't mean he isn't.

I find it so frustrating if you look at what has happened logically and assume the police know more than we do (they so obviously do) then there is a valid reason they didn't publish it themselves or ask for information about it (they didn't need to).

As for the one released yesterday been filmed on a mobile phone. Assuming it was filmed on someone's mobile then emailed over to the mail and they've shown it like that to get it out there quickly. Hasn't clearer footage come.oit since which could mean the one they are now showing is directly from the camera.
I don’t disagree. Everything you say sounds reasonable. Apart from the fact that why would they release it if they already knew who everyone in the video was. If that’s the case why do the public need to see it. They haven’t released any of the other “ hundreds of hours “ of cctv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
1,560
Total visitors
1,627

Forum statistics

Threads
606,344
Messages
18,202,301
Members
233,813
Latest member
dmccastor
Back
Top