GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25

[C.greek]

So I am wondering what most of us accept as facts?
Do we accept that
1. He took her in the park?
2. He raped her?

Genuine qs for those who think (mostly) based on the available evidence that it is not proved one way or the other that PR killed her.

 

[mrjitty]

It's important to remember the difference between burden of proof at trial (on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt), and evidential foundation.

The jury must ask what facts have been proven, and what can be inferred from them in totality. If they cannot infer murder to BARD standard, they must find him innocent - so for example, where they cannot rule out another reasonable option, even if the defence did not advance that option.

That is different to speculating explanations for scenarios that in themselves have no evidential foundation - the jury should not do this.

So if you believe PR lied about being in the park, you can ask what you can infer from it, but not speculate exculpatory versions not supported by evidence.

To me, it's clear he lied about being in the park, and the reason is to cover culpability - but for what?

Timing remains a significant issue, because if you think there is doubt he directly put the victim in the river, then murder is off the table

my 02c

 

[mrjitty]

So I am wondering what most of us accept as facts?
Do we accept that
1. He took her in the park?
2. He raped her?

Genuine qs for those who think (mostly) based on the available evidence that it is not proved one way or the other that PR killed her.

I accept the entire prosecution case, except perhaps the final inference.

Is there a reasonable possibility she got away from him, and instead of chasing, he just went back to his car?

I don't know the answer to that question without all the detailed evidence.

 

[C.greek]

I accept the entire prosecution case, except perhaps the final inference.

Is there a reasonable possibility she got away from him, and instead of chasing, he just went back to his car?

I don't know the answer to that question without all the detailed evidence.

Then do you accept the possibility that she got herself in the river? What about his 3rd visit?

 

[mrjitty]

Then do you accept the possibility that she got herself in the river? What about his 3rd visit?

To me it feels speculative - but i don't have all the evidence.

I do agree it seems unlikely he went back if he thought she and/or the police might be there. I believe he knew she was in the river.

 

[Tree hugger]

Hi, long-time lurker here posting for the first time. Regarding overpowering Libby, PR was quoted by the Sun newspaper ' He is a member of a martial arts school in Hull and is a supporter of Polish football club Legia Warsaw.' surely this would suggest he is fit and very able to manhandle her how he wished, perhaps even knowing pressure points to render her unconscious?

 

[Sooty]

I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that which can have more than one possible inference. Surely reaching a conclusion from an event that has two more more possible inferences is still speculation?


Edited for clarification.

 

[Chambo1994]

I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that can have more than one possible inference. Surely that is still speculation?

For most of us on this forum, yes!

 

[elliefant]

I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that can have more than one possible inference. Surely that is still speculation?

I don’t think we can accept that alternative explanation as being what happened, as being fact. Instead we can accept as fact that there are other viable possible explanations. Hence doubts.

That’s how it seems to me anyway

 

[Officer Dibble]

DBM

 

[Tortoise]

Why were there any screams, at all, if he was overpowering Libby in her extremely vulnerable state?

Did the rape take that long for the intermittent screams heard?

Why did the screams start so late after arrival if he was blocking her airways?

 

[C.greek]

I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that can have more than one possible inference. Surely reaching a conclusion from an event that has two more more possible inferences is still speculation?


Edited for clarification.

Ha, me being pedantic now. I didn't ask to reach a conclusion. From OED (LAW) "fact: the truth about events as opposed to interpretation."

 

[Cherwell]

Re the timings being tight.
I think it's important to bear in mind that if he did cause her death in the course of the assault, and put her body in the river, it was in his interests to move as fast as he possibly could.

 

[Newthoughts]

So I am wondering what most of us accept as facts?
Do we accept that
1. He took her in the park?
2. He raped her?

Genuine qs for those who think (mostly) based on the available evidence that it is not proved one way or the other that PR killed her.

Given very little can ever be proven (our prisons would be empty if we had to be 100% sure) I believe he raped her. Beyond all reasonable doubt.

He took her to the outside the park and she ended up in a river yes beyond all, not just reasonable, doubt - fact based.

At some point she is in the park beyond all doubt and fact based as she ends up in the river.

At some point she enters the river beyond all doubt.

His defence is that left Libby outside the park after consensual sex. They offer speculative refutations of prosecution claims based on timings without placing ever placing him in the park.

The prosecution claim rape murder and disposal of body.

CPS have allowed the charges despite the timing.

Therefore if I believe the defence - they are refuting timings about a hypothetical event that they don't want us to believe - fair enough they're defending him.

But their alternative offering from PR is still that he didn't enter the park. I suspect even they don't think misadventure is likely from there unless the reporting has missed that out.

So IMO they are subtly inviting the jury to conjure third scenario - that PR took into the park but left her. Misadventure now more feasible. But also no real examination of timings.

But why should anyone accept this third scenario if the defence haven't offered it?

Scream evidence is all over the place. A man was seen.

My opinion is Libby could not have got from Oak Road to the river based on my interpretation of the evidence.

So PR could have left her in the park making that more likely but if he's brought her into the park would he risk leaving her there with evidence of rape? He's not an idiot he'll know she's very likely to be found. Why leave her

If he did why risk the trip back? Rapists may return but not when there is no reasonable excuse to give to police who you might reasonably assume would be there if she'd left alive

Why fill another condom is she'd be found. Alive or dead. Now your condom leaving might be taken more seriously

Why lie about sex if there's a risk she'd be found. Very risky.

So my opinion is guilty of murder.

 

[Lyall0814]

Well said Newthoughts. Great Holmesian logic

 

[PitchforkRed]

We are placing so much importance of the timing of these screams. Can we even be sure that any of the 'screams' were actually human? Are foxes prevalent in the area of the playing fields? Do they make that noise all year round or just in breeding season? I thought this might be something the defence would bring up but it seems that PR needs the scream evidence of the two students to place Libby as still alive after he'd got home.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

For misadventure Libby has to start outside the park in Oak Road.

People can't speculate on her being left close to the river by PR because that hasn't been his defence.

In none of his stories does he take her into the park. So no 'left close to the river' option should be considered really. It is not been presented for some reason. Which is, in itself, suspicious.

Earlier CCTV shows she can barely walk and has often been helped up. The darts players found her lying in snow.

By this point she'd be colder and her blood alcohol is still 3 times the legal drink limit as per the toxicology reports. The terrain is less conducive to walking. She avoids all CCTV.

How do the misadventure theorists get her to the river avoiding CCTV from outside the park?

Who was the man?

I'm not sure that's quite sure how it works.

Evidence has been presented to suggest PR had taken Libby into ORPF, by at least SA (walking man). For arguments sake though, SAs evidence doesn't PROVE anything but suggests PR may have indeed been in the park with Libby.
I can (i believe) choose to disregard all of PRs evidence as unhelpful due to the fact I believe it is largely untruthful? Ie i don't believe his story of consensual sex outside by the green shed, I believe it likely, more likely he raped Libby in ORPF as that is what the evidence leads me to believe.

That doesn't mean I necessarily have to believe it automatically follows that after this he killed and dumped her into the river, especially if I feel the evidence hasn't proven this. For example cause of death unascertained, available time seems too short, no forensic evidence to place PR by the river, walking away rather than running.
Forgive me if I am wrong but as the Judge directed, you must not convict PR on his lies alone. For me I would just choose to disregard that information as unhelpful and I believe the Jury are entitled to choose which bits they believe to be true and which they don't, which are plausible and which aren't.

I think there is more than 1 possible explanation to what happened that night, and not one has been (in my mind) proven more favourable than another, therefore reasonable doubt.

 

[Newthoughts]

I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that which can have more than one possible inference. Surely reaching a conclusion from an event that has two more more possible inferences is still speculation?


Edited for clarification.

No case will ever yield total proof and 100% certainty tho. Or very few.

Earlier on @bos posted a really good post about determining beyond all reasonable doubt.

Realistically there are limited versions of what happened between PR arriving at Oak Road and Libby ending up in the river. The job is to decide what is plausible using everything you know. Prior offending, later behaviour, lies, subtle hints.

 

[Tortoise]

Given very little can ever be proven (our prisons would be empty if we had to be 100% sure) I believe he raped her. Beyond all reasonable doubt.

He took her to the outside the park and she ended up in a river yes beyond all, not just reasonable, doubt - fact based.

At some point she is in the park beyond all doubt and fact based as she ends up in the river.

At some point she enters the river beyond all doubt.

His defence is that left Libby outside the park after consensual sex. They offer speculative refutations of prosecution claims based on timings without placing ever placing him in the park.

The prosecution claim rape murder and disposal of body.

CPS have allowed the charges despite the timing.

Therefore if I believe the defence - they are refuting timings about a hypothetical event that they don't want us to believe - fair enough they're defending him.

But their alternative offering from PR is still that he didn't enter the park. I suspect even they don't think misadventure is likely from there unless the reporting has missed that out.

So IMO they are subtly inviting the jury to conjure third scenario - that PR took into the park but left her. Misadventure now more feasible. But also no real examination of timings.

But why should anyone accept this third scenario if the defence haven't offered it?

Scream evidence is all over the place. A man was seen.

My opinion is Libby could not have got from Oak Road to the river based on my interpretation of the evidence.

So PR could have left her in the park making that more likely but if he's brought her into the park would he risk leaving her there with evidence of rape? He's not an idiot he'll know she's very likely to be found. Why leave her

If he did why risk the trip back? Rapists may return but not when there is no reasonable excuse to give to police.

Why fill another condom is she'd be found.

Why lie about sex if there's a risk she'd be found.

So my opinion is guilty of murder.

"Mr Saxby has already invited the jury to consider misadventure."

Libby Squire murder trial live: Defence gives closing statement

 

[havntgotaclue]

So I am wondering what most of us accept as facts?
Do we accept that
1. He took her in the park?
2. He raped her?

Genuine qs for those who think (mostly) based on the available evidence that it is not proved one way or the other that PR killed her.

Wether he raped libby isnt in question she was intoxicated and vulnerable and COULD NOT CONSENT to sex so the only issue is did he murder libby or not.