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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruthbullock said:
BBM- if I was being attacked by someone with a car, as ridiculous as it sounds (and this is my logical head, not an impaired head talking), I would run into the dark park in the hopes that I could hide, at worst he would chase me and I could hopefully escape in the dark. If I stayed on the main road, he would be able to see me clearly and follow me either by foot or using his vehicle. Whilst it may seem illogical to many, I genuinely believe that would be the move I would make, logical or not.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that dark in the park that night though, it was somewhat illuminated by moonlight and a snow covering.

Personally, I'd always run to wherever I could see homes and scream my lungs out.
 
Tortoise said:
I don't agree it would be easy for Libby to have got herself out of the river.

A poster here has even desribed the under currents and freezing temperatures.

Then there is her lack of coordination from heavy intoxication, and numbness of extremities from hypothermia.

The expert estimated she would have survived for 30 minutes before succumbing to hypothermia, after entering the water. That is the same estimate I can find given on other sites like the lifeboats and st johns ambulance etc, but that doesn't seem to take account of Libby already being hypothermic before she went in, which they have stated she was.
Click to expand...
That piece of evidence was given by the expert on hypothermia on how long he estimated her survival so I imagine it would account fully for her state at that time.

It's been very difficult to get an idea of what the river is like as local people seem to disagree on how much it changes and there has been much debate on that. Someone posted that high tide that night was 2.30 which matches PRs return which I initially thought relevant. However others posted that that is irrelevant as the river doesn't change much at that point despite the tides.

On the videos @Strontium posted it doesn't look like a river you could fall or stumble into easily enough to catch undercurrents. Unlike the town centre and nearby industrial estates where the sides are steeper and built up.

But if it changes a lot with tides, again that would make a difference.

I haven't seen any agreement between posters either way on that. Some are adamant it doesn't change much at that point. Others not.

But in the absence of any clear agreement on how much it changes - PR did not place her near the river where SA heard the screams. So either PR is lying about his location of another woman was distressed at the river at that point.

And also she has to make her way to the river - PR has not given us an option if him taking her closer for some reason
 
mrazda71 said:
It wasn't that dark in the park that night though, it was somewhat illuminated by moonlight and a snow covering.

Personally, I'd always run to wherever I could see homes and scream my lungs out.
Click to expand...
I realise to most that isn’t logical. Would LS know it wasn’t full of trees to hide behind from her vantage point though if she had never been there before.
 
mrazda71 said:
I cannot imagine the strength it would take Libby's loved ones, to attend court today and sit opposite him ... Whatever the outcome of the trial - he IS the reason she is dead. He took her away from the relative safety (even drunk & hypothermic) of the busy street, when she was going in the direction of home and took her to the place where her life ended.

I don't believe in any God but, if he does I hope he knows that he's going to Hell.
Click to expand...
I don't believe in any God either but at times like these I wish I did for exactly the same reason.

I hope Libby's family do have that comfort xx
 
I agree. She ran unto the park out of fear and I believe she had seconds to make that decision.

I really find it hard to believe she fell in the river by her own merit. If she was stumbling along the river bank as suggested, she just happened to do this out of sight of the cctv?! I think of it this way . What are the chances of her falling into the river and avoiding all cctv, not snag her clothes on anything , not lose a shoe,not get caught up in reeds or other debis by the river, leaving no trace whatsoever of libby on or by the river. The chances are very low IMO.

What is the probability that a sexual deviant raped and then asphixated libby and put her in the river to avoid dna and getting caught.....quite high in my opinion.

Thinking of Libbys loved ones this week. I really hope justice is served.
 
A thought has just crossed my mind ... :(

Libby was in a confused state, according to Relowicz, crying for her Mum (did anyone else say she mentioned her Mum? Aby of the other people who tried to help? I do wonder if she really was asking him for her Mum or if that's just another knife to twist)

If he pulled up at ORPF and then said 'come on your Mum is here, come on she's down here (the playing field) waiting for you, come on... She would likely have gone willingly.
 
Vera_dci said:
I agree. She ran unto the park out of fear and I believe she had seconds to make that decision.

I really find it hard to believe she fell in the river by her own merit. If she was stumbling along the river bank as suggested, she just happened to do this out of sight of the cctv?! I think of it this way . What are the chances of her falling into the river and avoiding all cctv, not snag her clothes on anything , not lose a shoe,not get caught up in reeds or other debis by the river, leaving no trace whatsoever of libby on or by the river. The chances are very low IMO.

What is the probability that a sexual deviant raped and then asphixated libby and put her in the river to avoid dna and getting caught.....quite high in my opinion.

Thinking of Libbys loved ones this week. I really hope justice is served.
Click to expand...
The only difference between those two scenarios is 'falling' in and 'putting' in.

Putting in also avoided cctv, snagging, reeds etc, if that is what he did.
 
Put in by a person who has drone footage of the park and admitted to regularly going with his child. It wouldnt surprise me if he watched that drone footage on returning and planned what he was going to do on his third visit.
 
Last edited:
mrazda71 said:
A thought has just crossed my mind ... :(

Libby was in a confused state, according to Relowicz, crying for her Mum (did anyone else say she mentioned her Mum? Aby of the other people who tried to help? I do wonder if she really was asking him for her Mum or if that's just another knife to twist)

If he pulled up at ORPF and then said 'come on your Mum is here, come on she's down here (the playing field) waiting for you, come on... She would likely have gone willingly.
Click to expand...
He said it in his first police interviews. I think it's very likely that's what she was saying. He wouldn't have known if she had a relationship with her mum or even if her mum was alive, so it would be silly to make that part up, IMO. (Yeah, I know he's not intelligent.)

I've always thought it made sense that this is what Libby was saying she wanted, and what he offered.
 
I’ve confused myself looking at actus rea & Mens rea &
act v omission.

PR has used deceit or coercion to take Libby away from a place of relative safety(by virtue of the number of people around/light) in order to commit a sexual offence against her(harm).The offence is rape as she could not give consent in her state. Even if he didn’t directly kill her by asphyxiation, his recklessness of leaving her in a cold, dark location in an intoxicated state,a place where he knows there is water nearby could constitute murder as the consequences of doing so are foreseeable.

Whereas if he leaves her outside the park, as he claims to, the fact that she is nearer to houses/streetlights doesn’t make entering the river as foreseeable and leaving her there is an act of omission and therefore manslaughter more likely?

 
bos said:
I’ve confused myself looking at actus rea & Mens rea &
act v omission.

PR has used deceit or coercion to take Libby away from a place of relative safety(by virtue of the number of people around/light) in order to commit a sexual offence against her(harm).The offence is rape as she could not give consent in her state. Even if he didn’t directly kill her by asphyxiation, his recklessness of leaving her in a cold, dark location in an intoxicated state,a place where he knows there is water nearby could constitute murder as the consequences of doing so are foreseeable.

Whereas if he leaves her outside the park, as he claims to, the fact that she is nearer to houses/streetlights doesn’t make entering the river as foreseeable and leaving her there is an act of omission and therefore manslaughter more likely?
Click to expand...
Good point!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 159 more.
Total: 2,966 (members: 160, guests: 2,806)

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
2,806
Total visitors
2,966
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,394
Messages
18,171,466
Members
232,500
Latest member
oo DEE oo
Back
Top