UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #22

[JosieJo]

I think the scream testimonies need to be considered carefully - but I’m not sure if they are particularly helpful to the prosecution case. I will detail Mr Alfords as this is the testimony that the prosecution have chosen to use for ‘best fit’. They could have used statements from all parties, but that would only have added more doubt to the case for murder.

12:14 is the starting point. Mr Alford checked a text. I presume the time the text was received is his reference point, but it could be that it was the time he read it.

A ‘minute or two later’ he hears the first scream. So 12:15 - 12:16

He heard more screams and the looks out the window, but can’t see anyone in the park.

He states the screams went on ‘between 4 and 7 minutes’ - so by his reckoning we are now at somewhere between 12:19 and 12:23

after the last scream he went to the toilet and after that returned to the bedroom and continued to look out the window. Is it fair to add a minute here? 12:20 - 12:24

after a further ‘three or four minutes’ he sees a ‘male walking off the park .... purposefully.....wearing ‘fitted dark coloured joggers’ or ‘cuffed jeans’ and a ‘bomber style jacket’. 12:23 - 12:28

I think the screams are in some ways problematic...the witness said on the stand he was certain of the time he first checked his phone...he has allowed for variation himself already ...as obviously he is sensible enough to know time is difficult to judge . Him having already allowed for variation makes it more difficult to add any further variation
Either of his estimates have libby screaming when PR was in his car pulling away

The second witness imo hears the same thing ... its possible there timing could be slightly more out than Sams ...but what it does do is imo is put more credence on the latter end of Sams timings making it more problematic for the prosecution.

But the likelihood of another man having walked through the park at that time is slim .especially one who hasn't reported any screams..

I think the purpose of the defence scream witness was just to try and add doubt ...and for the defence to have a dig at the prosecution for not using them in front of the jury

 

[Sooty]

I think the screams are in some ways problematic...the witness said on the stand he was certain of the time he first checked his phone...he has allowed for variation himself already ...as obviously he is sensible enough to know time is difficult to judge . Him having already allowed for variation makes it more difficult to add any further variation
Either of his estimates have libby screaming when PR was in his car pulling away

The second witness imo hears the same thing ... its possible there timing could be slightly more out than Sams ...but what it does do is imo is put more credence on the latter end of Sams timings making it more problematic for the prosecution.

But the likelihood of another man having walked through the park at that time is slim .especially one who hasn't reported any screams..

I think the purpose of the defence scream witness was just to try and add doubt ...and for the defence to have a dig at the prosecution for not using them in front of the jury

i agree with you @JosieJo

 

[Scorpiette]

Apologies if this has been brought up before:
How accurate is/are the CCTV timings/clock on his second visit? I assume this has been checked by police/prosecution?
As this is CRUCIAL. If another minute or two or three is added on this could erase doubt over whether PR had enough time for that he is accused of.

 

[Sarahjo]

The biggest surprise for me regards his testimony is where he claimed he had sex with her..I fully expected him to say they went into the park.
His testimony is completely new and based on the evidence they had on him.
Everything else is built on trying to escape the evidence.. why on earth did he not want to put himself in the park ?
He could have given exactly the same story regards leaving her because she scratched him etc ...we know he's fitting that in based on other witnesses saying she became angry with them.
I first thought maybe because if he left her in the park they could claim he left her to die more so than if he claimed he left her on the street .... but he has left himself open by expecting people to believe she entered the park herself

Could it be the simple fact that that is where he raped her? I don’t know but I think if he had said it was in the park and he left her alive actually in the park it lends more weight to her stumbling toward the river on her own rather than leaving her in the street and her entering the park on her own.. there’s so many lies dotted with some parts of truth I don’t know if we will ever be sure what happened that night.

 

[Sooty]

Could it be the simple fact that that is where he raped her? I don’t know but I think if he had said it was in the park and he left her alive actually in the park it lends more weight to her stumbling toward the river on her own rather than leaving her in the street and her entering the park on her own.. there’s so many lies dotted with some parts of truth I don’t know if we will ever be sure what happened that night.

I agree @Sarahjo - also there is the problem of him getting her into the park - why would she go willingly? And if she didn’t go willingly - there are houses and lighting and the possibility of cctv nearby that surely would have been alerted to resistance. MOO

 

[tedtink]

Apologies if this has been brought up before:
How accurate is/are the CCTV timings/clock on his second visit? I assume this has been checked by police/prosecution?
As this is CRUCIAL. If another minute or two or three is added on this could erase doubt over whether PR had enough time for that he is accused of.

I've worked with a pretty sophisticated unit in the past which was connected to a monitor/internet, so I would say pretty accurate.
Also have to take into consideration the way they work on infrared at night too - They can 'alter' colours/clothing depending on light conditions.
JMO

 

[Vermont24]

Apologies if this has been brought up before:
How accurate is/are the CCTV timings/clock on his second visit? I assume this has been checked by police/prosecution?
As this is CRUCIAL. If another minute or two or three is added on this could erase doubt over whether PR had enough time for that he is accused of.

Presumably, they'd look at footage in a wider context to establish correct timings i.e. where he was before and after, and time taken to travel between these points.

 

[Sooty]

I really don’t envy the jury in this case at all.

for the record, I think he is likely to be found guilty of both counts.

I think the rape conviction is indisputable.

However, as we have seen the evidence does not present a clear pathway to murder.

we can carry on filling in the gaps in the evidence with our own takes on it, and as we have seen, come up with many different possible scenarios.

Therefore, I’m not sure how safe a conviction it will be, which does cause me concern.

This is my opinion, albeit not a popular one- and one made after giving a thorough analysis of the evidence that we have had the benefit of being presented with.

Like I say, I don’t envy the jury, but I think they will want to find him guilty as there is a young woman who is dead and that is the most terrible thing.

Will have to see what the summing up looks like.

 

[Tortoise]

I think the scream testimonies need to be considered carefully - but I’m not sure if they are particularly helpful to the prosecution case. I will detail Mr Alfords as this is the testimony that the prosecution have chosen to use for ‘best fit’. They could have used statements from all parties, but that would only have added more doubt to the case for murder.

12:14 is the starting point. Mr Alford checked a text. I presume the time the text was received is his reference point, but it could be that it was the time he read it.

A ‘minute or two later’ he hears the first scream. So 12:15 - 12:16

He heard more screams and the looks out the window, but can’t see anyone in the park.

He states the screams went on ‘between 4 and 7 minutes’ - so by his reckoning we are now at somewhere between 12:19 and 12:23

after the last scream he went to the toilet and after that returned to the bedroom and continued to look out the window. Is it fair to add a minute here? 12:20 - 12:24

after a further ‘three or four minutes’ he sees a ‘male walking off the park .... purposefully.....wearing ‘fitted dark coloured joggers’ or ‘cuffed jeans’ and a ‘bomber style jacket’. 12:23 - 12:28

Another way to look at it is to work backwards.

If he actually saw PR and PR left at 12:19 he must have seen him at about 12:18; he had been watching before that point so say 30 seconds watching to be generous to the prosecution and discount his "3-4 minutes", 12:17:30s, take off a minute in the loo, 12:16:30s is the point at which screaming stopped. That means he heard screams lasting 1 min 30s, despite distinctly noticing a pattern with several pauses.

Let's say he sat and listened to screams for 30 seconds before deciding this is strange and getting up to look out of his window. That would be at about 12:15:30s. Then it stopped at 12:16:30s and he went to the loo. Why would he go back to looking out of the window after he went to the loo, if it was now silent and had been silent for nearly two minutes by the time he saw anything? Why continue to look out for such an extended period? 2 minutes is long to stare at a blank park without a focus and no reason to think anything else will happen now that it's quiet.

I think it suggests he had heard screaming lasting much longer than this 'only-fit' reconstruction suggests, to warrant his actions, especially with the pauses he noted. Which means that his longer estimates of 4-7 minutes and 3-4 minutes are more likely to be correct and he saw a man leaving quite a while after 12:19. He may even have under-estimated his timings, if we're going with unreliability of witnesses. Who's to say he wasn't in the loo longer than one minute? It would take him time to walk to the loo and back.

So why would a man who hadn't raped Libby or had anything to do with Libby screaming or being in the river leave the park in a hurried fashion? Perhaps because he heard screams and didn't want to be associated.

Perhaps the other witnesses didn't register screams that started before 12:30 because that is the first time they paid attention. She said she told him to be quiet, which suggests they had been making noise of some sort, and the screams would have been more distant for them than the house in the park.

I think it's not only feasible Libby was screaming after PR left but a reasonable assessment of all the witness evidence combined.

MOO

 

[Ruthbullock]

Apologies if this has been brought up before:
How accurate is/are the CCTV timings/clock on his second visit? I assume this has been checked by police/prosecution?
As this is CRUCIAL. If another minute or two or three is added on this could erase doubt over whether PR had enough time for that he is accused of.

Two different cameras showed the time- (oak road 12.19, Beverley road 12.19-12.20, which slot together perfectly)so I would say completely accurate
ETA also one was a home system and one linked to the council system- so it’s not even the same system with a time error throughout.

 

[Sooty]

Another way to look at it is to work backwards.

If he actually saw PR and PR left at 12:19 he must have seen him at about 12:18; he had been watching before that point so say 30 seconds watching to be generous to the prosecution and discount his "3-4 minutes", 12:17:30s, take off a minute in the loo, 12:16:30s is the point at which screaming stopped. That means he heard screams lasting 1 min 30s, despite distinctly noticing a pattern with several pauses.

Let's say he sat and listened to screams for 30 seconds before deciding this is strange and getting up to look out of his window. That would be at about 12:15:30s. Then it stopped at 12:16:30s and he went to the loo. Why would he go back to looking out of the window after he went to the loo, if it was now silent and had been silent for nearly two minutes by the time he saw anything? Why continue to look out for such an extended period? 2 minutes is long to stare at a blank park without a focus and no reason to think anything else will happen now that it's quiet.

I think it suggests he had heard screaming lasting much longer than this 'only-fit' reconstruction suggests, to warrant his actions, especially with the pauses he noted. Which means that his longer estimates of 4-7 minutes and 3-4 minutes are more likely to be correct and he saw a man leaving quite a while after 12:19. He may even have under-estimated his timings, if we're going with unreliability of witnesses. Who's to say he wasn't in the loo longer than one minute? It would take him time to walk to the loo and back.

So why would a man who hadn't raped Libby or had anything to do with Libby screaming or being in the river leave the park in a hurried fashion? Perhaps because he heard screams and didn't want to be associated.

Perhaps the other witnesses didn't register screams that started before 12:30 because that is the first time they paid attention. She said she told him to be quiet, which suggests they had been making noise of some sort, and the screams would have been more distant for them than the house in the park.

I think it's not only feasible Libby was screaming after PR left but a reasonable assessment of all the witness evidence combined.

MOO

@Tortoise you make a great deal of sense here as usual.

I would just add - anyone walking through a park at night would do so with ‘purpose’ - it would be more unusual to idle along. When it’s dark we tend to walk anywhere with more urgency, and more so if in an exposed and isolated location. It’s just an instinct I suppose.

 

[Tortoise]

The biggest surprise for me regards his testimony is where he claimed he had sex with her..I fully expected him to say they went into the park.
His testimony is completely new and based on the evidence they had on him.
Everything else is built on trying to escape the evidence.. why on earth did he not want to put himself in the park ?
He could have given exactly the same story regards leaving her because she scratched him etc ...we know he's fitting that in based on other witnesses saying she became angry with them.
I first thought maybe because if he left her in the park they could claim he left her to die more so than if he claimed he left her on the street .... but he has left himself open by expecting people to believe she entered the park herself

There's a possibility Libby needed to go to the loo. It could be why she went into Endsleigh looking for a sheltered spot but he interrupted her. I noticed there were two buildings that looked like public conveniences quite near the entrance to the park. Obviously could have been locked up at night.

From google street view -

Google Maps

 

[Steve2021]

Newthoughts, thank you for your long and lucid analysis. That would certainly in my opinion be overwhelmingly the most likely explanation. You do however state at the end that it was PW on the balance of probabilities, which I think it's hard to disagree with, and which of course is sufficient for a civil case, but the jury will have to find it beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it will all come down to the the evidence of Mr Alford and the Claremont witnesses, and as to how certain or not they were. If Mr Alford said the man absolutely definitely had dark not light jeans on, or for example was skinny, it can't have been PW he saw. If he said the man was some way off, he didn't get that clear a view, he thought the jeans were dark but could be mistaken, it would be easy to simply dismiss his evidence. I am a bit surprised these witnesses weren't in the box longer, so maybe both sides figured they added little either way. Also presumably the prosecution knew what Mr Alford was going to say, so if he was going to describe with total certainty a man who couldn't have been PW would they have proceeded with a murder charge? Again we've only heard a sample of this. I would imagine the jury have long since concluded PW would say anything to help his case, thus they are disinclined to believe anything he has said that does help it. I think as far as his defence is concerned his evidence is a total write off.

Also I guess not impossible PW who from other footage was the owner of a camo style jacket and appeared to be wearing it when at Tesco that night, could have taken it off and have had a more bomber style top underneath.

As to how Libby got to the river I believe any suggestion she wandered into the park after PW left to be ludicrous. Yes she was drunk and emotionally upset but I see no evidence that she was incapable of any rational thought. Yes she was unsteady on her feet but the earlier footage shows her successfully crossing a main road and avoiding the traffic, and I see no evidence to suggest she was so out of it she had no idea where she was. I do wonder if the defence will suggest suicide, which I consider even more preposterous. I suspect they won't as I don't think it will play well with the jury.

Someone just asked could the rape have occurred post death, and I wouldn't by any means discount that.

I have wondered how PW (or the random stranger if not PW) got poor Libby maybe 200m into the park before anyone heard any screams. Maybe she ran and he chased? Maybe she fell asleep and he carried her? Any thoughts?

 

[bos]

Yes, as it stands he has lied & lied until incontrovertible evidence discredits that version.

Sam Alford saw a man in the park that he hasn’t categorically identified as PR. Any forensic traces of PR in the park e.g the SOCO bench can be explained by any earlier visits. As he sees it, there is nothing to prove that he didn’t remain outside the park.

I’d have liked to have heard more re his explanation of not taking his phone out, particularly on the third visit to Oak Road if he was that concerned for Libby’s welfare. What was he going to do if he found her “lying somewhere”? He’d rejected taking her to a police station earlier in the evening because of his English. To take her there or to A&E in person with not only the language barrier but his semen in her seems absolutely remote.

 

[mrazda71]

Another way to look at it is to work backwards.

If he actually saw PR and PR left at 12:19 he must have seen him at about 12:18; he had been watching before that point so say 30 seconds watching to be generous to the prosecution and discount his "3-4 minutes", 12:17:30s, take off a minute in the loo, 12:16:30s is the point at which screaming stopped. That means he heard screams lasting 1 min 30s, despite distinctly noticing a pattern with several pauses.

Let's say he sat and listened to screams for 30 seconds before deciding this is strange and getting up to look out of his window. That would be at about 12:15:30s. Then it stopped at 12:16:30s and he went to the loo. Why would he go back to looking out of the window after he went to the loo, if it was now silent and had been silent for nearly two minutes by the time he saw anything? Why continue to look out for such an extended period? 2 minutes is long to stare at a blank park without a focus and no reason to think anything else will happen now that it's quiet.

I think it suggests he had heard screaming lasting much longer than this 'only-fit' reconstruction suggests, to warrant his actions, especially with the pauses he noted. Which means that his longer estimates of 4-7 minutes and 3-4 minutes are more likely to be correct and he saw a man leaving quite a while after 12:19. He may even have under-estimated his timings, if we're going with unreliability of witnesses. Who's to say he wasn't in the loo longer than one minute? It would take him time to walk to the loo and back.

So why would a man who hadn't raped Libby or had anything to do with Libby screaming or being in the river leave the park in a hurried fashion? Perhaps because he heard screams and didn't want to be associated.

Perhaps the other witnesses didn't register screams that started before 12:30 because that is the first time they paid attention. She said she told him to be quiet, which suggests they had been making noise of some sort, and the screams would have been more distant for them than the house in the park.

I think it's not only feasible Libby was screaming after PR left but a reasonable assessment of all the witness evidence combined.

MOO

I'm wondering if the CCTV system times and the time on Sams device have been compared.

My phone is set by my provider as are my kids but, they can all say slightly different times and my 1 daughter who's on Vodafone is 2 mins different from mine.

 

[Steve2021]

I now believe PR left Libby unconscious in the Park after the rape. He seems to toss her faux leather jacket in the rear of the Astra on spidercam. From the Haworth St and Tesco cctv his car interior light is not set to operate on opening the car (on purpose during his night time prowling?) Car upholstery seems to be dark also, maybe he missed the fact Libby's jacket was in the rear when he returned from the second Oak Rd visit to Raglan St.

Two hours later PR makes third visit to Oak Rd and finds Libby dead (or seemingly so) and places her in river. Right knee dirty in latter Newland Avenue cctv footage where he knelt to pick her body up.

Does anyone have times and locations where he was seen after his third Oak Rd visit where he could conceivably have got rid of Libby's jacket prior to returning to Raglan St?

Thanks for those points. My screen resolution doesn't allow me to study the CCTV too clearly, but if he did toss something in the back of the car you could well be right that it's her jacket. If as you believe the knee of his joggers are dirty in the later Newlands footage that would certainly merit investigation. Going from memory I think in his travels after the 3rd visit to the park he went missing from CCTV for a significant period...you'd have to check it.

 

[Cherwell]

Like I say, I don’t envy the jury, but I think they will want to find him guilty as there is a young woman who is dead and that is the most terrible thing.

I think they will want to see him locked up and off the streets for as long as possible. Whether that will influence them on the murder charge depends on how conscientious they are.

 

[tedtink]

The colours we see from an infrared image are known to be a false colour image.
Mr Alford saw them with his naked eye which could explain the discrepancy imo.

Another poster suggested, a couple of threads back that PR could have 'lifted' his coat up to his waist in order to open his trousers - this could be why the jacket was described as a 'bomber' ie - short jacket.

JMO

 

[Steve2021]

I think he was wearing these or extremely similar. Jeans & a belt,button & zip have all been referred to. He changes into joggers after returning home for his bath (despite initially claiming he put on the same clothes)

Thanks for the pictures. Very good spot. Well done.

I'm not a fashionista but guess as a young man PW would be wearing current trendyish jeans. Not sure you see people in very light jeans do you? So maybe they aren't particularly light, and at night, not inconceivable Mr Alford might not figure them to be light.

 

[tedtink]

Thanks for the pictures. Very good spot. Well done.

I'm not a fashionista but guess as a young man PW would be wearing current trendyish jeans. Not sure you see people in very light jeans do you? So maybe they aren't particularly light, and at night, not inconceivable Mr Alford might not figure them to be light.

Sorry - I don't know all the details, but could you tell my who, when or why they would have been described as light?
Thank you.