Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen getting into taxi outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #6 *ARREST*

[JosieJo]

I think that would be pretty much Council cars only.

There is a park keeper's hut inside the main car park at the Beresford Avenue entrance. They would presumably hold all the various park keys in there. The staff wear green, the cars/vans are yellow.

Once you are in the carpark, there is a track out the other side but it barred by a locked gate.

At some point there is always a gate to stop a car, day or night, from advancing that far.

Appearances can be deceiving, the park is actually pretty decently maintained. The staff drive in and out all the time, and there are fairs held near the pond in the summer. They have the versatility to be able to open/close access to cars pretty easily and quickly.

On foot that is entirely different. Apart from the boundary with Croda, and houses on the far North side, the park is not fenced in at all.

Does that make sense?

Yes thank you was just trying to estimate the nearest point to the po d or river a member of the public could park at night

 

[Kolumbo]

This is a bike video of me going along the river side path from the south of the main search area from a few years ago. Gives you some more idea of the scale and accessibility of the area.

Only really of interest to give an idea of the area the Police have been searching, I don't think any of this is relevant if he's staying with his car, or having to carry something heavy.

If a person was spiked, and compliant, and was able to walk for themselves, then you can see the huge and difficult area to search.

Skip to 3:11 leave the footpath/road at Stoneferry Bridge, turn left onto the West bank of the river, heading North, towards Oak Road/Beresford Park.

Skip to 8:00ish - passing the Croda plant on the left...

Ends as I get to the wind turbine.

This is great and charts the part of the path I walked today, albeit starting from the other direction (ironically you were closer to my house! lol). I didn't realise you could get down onto the west part of the river from Stoneferry bridge. That's why I walked past the police station and turned off near Mecca to get to Oak Rd. Took myself in a big circle, and then retraced the whole lot again. I scouted the bridge for a gate or some steps down too. What gives? Am I blind or was the path closed off at that end in recent months/years? Damn.

EDIT: Ah yes, I see the gate now! Must've missed it from the other side of the road. Nevertheless, I would have assumed it was padlocked. Suppose one can easily jump over either way. I'll take that route next time. Great stuff.

 

[Deleted member 238128]

Why is the smoking man cctv sped up in parts? Is that something ITV did for dramatic effect?

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Why is the smoking man cctv sped up in parts? Is that something ITV did for dramatic effect?

I assume it was simply because there was nobody/nothing in shot?

 

[Ched]

Why is the smoking man cctv sped up in parts? Is that something ITV did for dramatic effect?

They speeded up all the interesting bits so we couldn’t make too much out .... that’s all got to be down to the police doctoring it

 

[Ched]

I assume it was simply because there was nobody/nothing in shot?

They cut out bits ....and all where he’s in it plus putting ‘passenger’ in , is speeded up so we can’t see it properly

 

[flowerpot]

It would be a huge detail! And they could get shoe prints!

I wonder if they did...and also the number of footprints? Also if she fell/slipped getting into the car and was already bleeding from her earlier fall/s it may have left trace of her blood. Or would there be too much contamination for that to show up. It would definitively put her near that car, whoever’s car that is.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

They cut out bits ....and all where he’s in it plus putting ‘passenger’ in , is speeded up so we can’t see it properly

Sure, but I think all the important and key parts are there and it was sped up/edited to keep the footage to watchable length for public consumption. I was under the impression this CCTV was obtained by ITV from the owner not the Police? So any editing was by them. It is possible other parts may have been edited out at the request of Police, but i doubt it right now.

 

[Deleted member 238128]

They cut out bits ....and all where he’s in it plus putting ‘passenger’ in , is speeded up so we can’t see it properly

But they must know we can adjust scrub rates?

 

[Deleted member 238128]

I assume it was simply because there was nobody/nothing in shot?

But the part where someone/ something enters the car appears sped up

 

[Deleted member 238128]

Sure, but I think all the important and key parts are there and it was sped up/edited to keep the footage to watchable length for public consumption. I was under the impression this CCTV was obtained by ITV from the owner not the Police? So any editing was by them. It is possible other parts may have been edited out at the request of Police, but i doubt it right now.

Why would Core Electricals want ITV to have footage already given to police? Money? Wouldn’t the police advise them not to pass to media?

Also. Do we know when cctv was given to police in relation to when P’s car was removed? Was the footage of the car being taken published prior to CCTV being made available?

 

[Ched]

Why would Core Electricals want ITV to have footage already given to police? Money? Wouldn’t the police advise them not to pass to media?

ITV got it first , gave it to the police think on the Sunday , police asked them to sit on it a while ( then they must have agreed what could be released and when ) that’s why it’s an itv exclusive clip ..... this is as I remember

Edit , they had the cctv first (but not realeases to public ) then took the car as I remember

 

[JosieJo]

Regards the possibility of two people being involved I've not read anything that would make me think that at the minute

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

But the part where someone/ something enters the car appears sped up

What I mean is it is pointless showing a man sitting rolling a ciggy or playing with his phone for 3-4 minutes in real time. No useful info so speed it up or edit it down. I don't believe there is anything nefarious going on here.

Why would Core Electricals want ITV to have footage already given to police? Money? Wouldn’t the police advise them not to pass to media?

Also. Do we know when cctv was given to police in relation to when P’s car was removed? Was the footage of the car being taken published prior to CCTV being made available?

I think I remember reading (might have been the Mail so could be BS!) that the Core owners weren't pleased it hadn't been released for a week?

The CCTV was collect by Police (and media?) on Sunday I think and Police requestd media not to release but did after a ~week?

All from memory...

 

[flowerpot]

It would be a huge detail! And they could get shoe prints!

Never even thought of shoe prints! Good shout, especially as it was freezing. Was thinking more the foot pattern, as in how many people.

 

[SJ16321]

I don't want to be too harsh on the police as obviously they're going to be doing their best, but why are we getting replicas of the clothes on day FOURTEEN. It would have been a lot more useful to get them in the first few days, there's no way I'd remember someone wearing a pretty standard jacket, skirt and trainers 2 weeks later. It's just standard clothes for a girl on a night out that you wouldn't bat an eyelid at.

They also say the trainers are distinctive but they're really not. I think just about every girl/woman I know between the ages of about 14-30 has a pair of those!

 

[flowerpot]

What I mean is it is pointless showing a man sitting rolling a ciggy or playing with his phone for 3-4 minutes in real time. No useful info so speed it up or edit it down. I don't believe there is anything nefarious going on here.



I think I remember reading (might have been the Mail so could be BS!) that the Core owners weren't pleased it hadn't been released for a week?

The CCTV was collect by Police (and media?) on Sunday I think and Police requestd media not to release but did after a ~week?

All from memory...

You’re right it’s in this link

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/8388006/libby-squire-new-cctv-footage/amp/

 

[grumpiness]

My first thought when I read the part about your muddy trousers was my God, when my husband has been out at night and left me with the kids I am usually awake when he gets home - if a kid isn’t up, then the fact that I’m a very light sleeper means I hear him come in. I also do the very vast majority of the laundry. I would notice mud immediately. And if I was asleep when he came in and I didn’t wake, he would still have had to shower if he was wearing shorts. My husband has also never once been out walking the dog and NOT gotten muddy trainer prints in the hallway or left his muddy trainers lying on the doorstep begging for a wash. Point is, it’s likely that if a man has been in a muddy park in the middle of the night, the wife is likely to notice signs.

When the ground is frozen solid how much mud would there be? I walk my dog over hills fields and farm land and when it's icy cold and it was -5 that night there isn't much mud to stick to my shoes

 

[Ched]

‘It came after CCTV footage, thought to be a central part of the investigation into the disappearance of university student Libby Squire, was obtained exclusively by ITV News.’

ITV News exclusive: CCTV captures car activity minutes before student Libby Squire was last seen in Hull

 

[flowerpot]

I don't want to be too harsh on the police as obviously they're going to be doing their best, but why are we getting replicas of the clothes on day FOURTEEN. It would have been a lot more useful to get them in the first few days, there's no way I'd remember someone wearing a pretty standard jacket, skirt and trainers 2 weeks later. It's just standard clothes for a girl on a night out that you wouldn't bat an eyelid at.

They also say the trainers are distinctive but they're really not. I think just about every girl/woman I know between the ages of about 14-30 has a pair of those!

I thought they meant the trainers were distinctive not necessarily because of the style but the size? Might sound stupid but in that image her clothes are not just representative of look but also size IMO, the trainers look big so it’s not impossible given her height that she might have big feet? But then I’m only a size 4 so anything is big to me!

ETA: if someone were to come across a trainer/s like this then they might think ‘oh that looks too big to be a women’s shoe, probably belongs to a man and ignore it. Or something along those lines in my opinion anyway