Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #11 *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.
Are any of our Hull locals able / willing to attend tomorrow? I’m sure it will only be a short formality and that Hull Live will quickly share details of the charge sheet. But I’d be interested to hear about his reaction and demeanour.
Would be great if someone could go along. Very interested to hear if he still maintains his zoned out, emotionless demeanour.
 
This might be a daft question but here goes

The police have new charges of burglary and receiving stolen good. If they had found a stack of stolen goods in his possession what would make them distinguish between ones they'd thought he had stolen and ones they thought someone else had stolen? Does that suggest they have the original thief already?

Another daft question. The new charges again include burglary. The last burglary charges were trespass rather then breaking in. Is is always the case if the police just say burglary? Or could that include breaking and entering.
 
One of my properties in the area was broken into during that time frame. I didn't deal with the police directly because the (young, female) tenants took care of it - I just took care of the buildings insurance side of things. I feel like there was some mention of photos being taken. I could make a call, but let's see what street addresses are given tomorrow.
Photos were taken in the Ventnor road burglary days before Libby disappeared
 
This is from a solicitors website,

"Police often suspect people of handling stolen goods if they are investigating another crime, and are suspicious why a suspect has more luxury or electronic items than they could reasonably afford. This can lead to a long investigation while the police try to prove that the items are stolen, and the items will be kept by the police while they make these enquiries.'

Does this mean someone could be charged with handling the items because police know they are stolen but can't 100% prove he stole them?
 
Another daft question. The new charges again include burglary. The last burglary charges were trespass rather then breaking in. Is is always the case if the police just say burglary? Or could that include breaking and entering.
We've only got a brief statement to the press so far. I wouldn't read too much into it. Let's wait and see how the charges are worded in court tomorrow.
 
Police are doing this to keep him in custody, a ‘drip drip’ effect to keep him inside while they search for Libby’s body, as each court case comes up they will add new charges until Libby found imho

Hope they have enough charges if that is the case, could be waiting a long long time (hope not)
 
Hope they have enough charges if that is the case, could be waiting a long long time (hope not)

There was a genuine risk that PR would plead guilty in his forthcoming case next week to avoid a trial, and also a guilty plea increases chances of a light sentence so police faced with that risk have added new things to the charge sheet imho so he can be kept in custody while they search for Libby
 
There was a genuine risk that PR would plead guilty in his forthcoming case next week to avoid a trial, and also a guilty plea increases chances of a light sentence so police faced with that risk have added new things to the charge sheet imho so he can be kept in custody while they search for Libby

I agree, just hope they don't run out of charges before they find her.
 
I agree, just hope they don't run out of charges before they find her.

Agree, while these thing he is accused of are no doubt distressing for those concerned I think they are just an excuse to keep him off the streets while they search for more evidence that he is responsible for Libby’s disappearance/probable demise
 
I would have thought the sheer number of charges (if found guilty) would definitely lead to a custodial sentence now.

Of how long though?

When I was burgled I was surprised how long the guy got as I expected him to get a few months tops but he got quite a bit longer than that for mine and 4 other offences, all happened while householders were in bed (Not sure if that has an impact, possibly not)

If I remember rightly he served about 17 months.

None of these were of a pervy nature though.
 
In relation to PR telling his wife/sister/mother/anyone about giving someone a lift, it's possible that he wasn't aware of the CCTV at the time but noticed it after going out to check camera locations. Alternatively, he was aware of the camera in advance and knew something would probably have be seen so gave an explanation to cover his tracks.
 
Of how long though?

When I was burgled I was surprised how long the guy got as I expected him to get a few months tops but he got quite a bit longer than that for mine and 4 other offences, all happened while householders were in bed (Not sure if that has an impact, possibly not)

If I remember rightly he served about 17 months.

None of these were of a pervy nature though.

Householders being at home does increase the seriousness in sentencing.

"
Factors indicating greater harm
  • Theft of/damage to property causing a significant degree of loss to the victim (whether economic, sentimental or personal value)
  • Soiling, ransacking or vandalism of property
  • Occupier at home (or returns home) while offender present
  • Trauma to the victim, beyond the normal inevitable consequence of intrusion and theft
  • Violence used or threatened against victim
  • Context of general public disorder
 
Does anybody know English court procedure well enough to know if these 7 additional offences are referred up to the crown court tomorrow, how likely they are to be considered at the Monday 11th hearing?
 
And also why they are charging him with outraging public decency rather than exposure (with masturbation) causing increased fear and distress?

Is it all to do with proving that the perpetrator wanted to be seen and therefore outraging public decency is easier to prove in that any reasonable member of the public would be outraged?

The exposure charge is contrary to the Sexual Offences Act (section 66) with a requirement to be added to the sex offenders register; is it because the charges include voyeurism which also require registering as a sex offender ?

I guess it concerns me that any sexual motivation angle may be downplayed
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,679
Total visitors
1,858

Forum statistics

Threads
606,853
Messages
18,212,059
Members
233,987
Latest member
Loislooking
Back
Top