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

[Newthoughts]

Deleted by me - duplicate

 

[Newthoughts]

Personally (on the limited reporting we've heard) I'm not sure I can attribute much weight to any of the witnesses timings for the screams. But I am more interested in the man seen by Sam Alford. If he isn't PW who the hell is he? If his appearance is nothing like PW I fear everyone in Hull has cause to be very worried.

If he was not PW, given this sighting was directly after the screams, does this not strongly suggest this man is responsible for poor Libby's death?

But if this is so do we not encounter a similarly tight time window to the 7.5 minutes available to PR only a few minutes earlier? After all, if PW is to be believed neither he nor Libby entered the park by the time he left at 12.19 am. So, in the maybe 10 minutes between 12.19 and the sighting of this man leaving the park is it conceivable Libby could have left Oak Road, somehow been attacked by him, gone through the park and been put in the river, and the man have time to cover the ground back from the river to Oak Road?

Alternatively of course PW is lying and he left Libby in the park, which would then provide a greater window for the random stranger to attack her, put her in the water etc. and make his way back to Oak Road. But if he has felt the need to lie why? What is he trying to hide?

Finally, I submit PW can hardly expect the jury to determine that telling them he didn't enter the park was a lie, and then apply this to his advantage by determining this then allows for the possibility of a random stranger to be responsible for Libby's death.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Yes. Lots I'm afraid

If I were asked to describe the man shown in spidercam - which was closer and artificially lit - I'd say tight trousers and some kind of shortish jacket. Distinctions evident in more brightly lit clearer cctv aren't there so I'd be looking for any features pointed out when shown that clearer Tesco footage. The jeans. The stance. The build. I'd say jacket darker than trousers. That's as clear as it gets but it looks like PR

But then I would also have footage of that man stalking Libby and Libby's watch and timings that would confirm it as more likely PR than another bulky guy in distinctive jeans and the same car. Even PR knew enough about probabilities to admit it was him.

If you took away the artificial light of spidercam and increased the distance and the figure was moving my description would more likely be just everything darker tight trousers and a shortish jacket. Distinctions in colour would really be lost.

The important thing is the extra info and the circumstances in which I've seen the man AND does anything really exclude PR?

So how exactly is this man 'nothing like PR'. What in this description specifically excludes PR? Nothing excludes him - it's not clear enough to see detail and PR WAS wearing tight trousers and a shortish jacket in spidercam.

What we do have extra tho is that that witness has just heard screams near to the river that stop just before he sees that man walking away purposefully.

Nothing in his description excludes PR so what else do we have?

Two more witnesses hear pretty much the same screams from the same locations but timing is slightly different. If all timings are correct all witnesses fail to hear two sets of virtually identical screams from the same location. I'd say more likely timings are more approximations as second witnesses have said they listened, thought about and discussed it. Witness one on the other hand has seen something

At the time witness one sees the man - PRs car is at the park and so is Libby. PR says he wasn't near the river he was raping Libby etc. PR is a proven liar. So on balance of probability are two men are at the park or is PR lying?


Libby can barely walk so is unlikely to have got herself to the river to scream in time and then back to say a scratchy bye to PR.

So two women are are at the park screaming? Two men are attacking them at different spots? One is never reported? Is that more likely than PR lying? No.

Libby isn't found for 7 more weeks. But she is found in an place directly linked to the river which flows from that park to where she was found. Same park as possible other man and screaming mystery woman.

Libby has not obviously drowned tho it cannot be totally excluded. To get there from where PR says he left her involves leaving a brightly lit street and going into darkness then thru the park avoiding CCTV. Towards I might add the park where another woman must have been screaming. How likely is that?

On examination ONLY PRs DNA is found inside Therefore PR must have known his DNA was inside Libby yet failed up mention it?!

For someone who hadn't put Libby in the river - not going straight to story 5 was a huge risk! Surely the risk of her being found with DNA evidence was too great not to go to the sex by the shed story straight away? How would that look?

Unless of course you were confident that either she wouldn't be found or if she were your DNA would have gone somehow? Like maybe bring immersed in water for a while?

PR is not an idiot - he may not think it's rape cos he's that kind of nasty piece of work but he must know that Libby and the law might not see it his way. PR is a sexual predator he gets off on fear - keeps eye contact etc.

Yet PR returns to the park risking being seen by police officers checking Libby's story.

Then after another quick prowl he unsuccessfully stalks another woman and fills a condom with more DNA.

So what is more likely. Another bloke in tight trousers and a jacket is in the same place as a woman is screaming near the river whilst PR in tight trousers and a jacket is down by the green shed? Or PR is lying?

Or perhaps that having escaped one sexual predator Libby makes her way from the shed after rape (or sex) and comes across another predatory man in tight trousers and shortish jackets who gets his kicks from throwing people in rivers?

Beyond all doubt I think it's PR.

I don't know what the issue is myself. On the balance of probabilities PR

 

[Happygirlie2003]

Just throwing it out there we all assume rape followed by murder but with this sicko could the events have happened the other way around murder then sex with a dead body? A horrible thought but wouldn’t put it past PR to do this IMO

 

[Newthoughts]

Has the defence brought this up as a possibility ? They are all aware of the available cctv footage. Nothing of this kind, ie another murderer, has been even suggested. All circumstantial and other evidence point to PR and only him as the perpetrator. I prefer to stick to the facts for now instead of adding another hypothetical person to the equation.

Yes me too.

 

[Deckard]

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?

 

[Newthoughts]

Oh, yes and I agree, but if Sam Alford was describing a different and innocent bloke, that might explain the clothing discrepancies (ie. tight jeans vs joggers, camo jacket vs bomber jacket) . Not that I think PR was wearing tight jeans and a bomber jacket - I'd describe him as wearing joggers; tapered from the knee down, with quite a loose side pocket that he put something into on spidercam and a fleece top, not a jacket at all.
My comments were basically just to respond to @Steve2021 's request for thoughts.

We ready know he was wearing jeans because the police have said and forensics have said they'd been washed but the identified grass stains. At her bottom they look tight and tapered.

On spidercam it just looks like a shortish jacket.

So if he was further away, walking and it was darker anyway nothing says they aren't the same person

 

[mrazda71]

Oh, yes and I agree, but if Sam Alford was describing a different and innocent bloke, that might explain the clothing discrepancies (ie. tight jeans vs joggers, camo jacket vs bomber jacket) . Not that I think PR was wearing tight jeans and a bomber jacket - I'd describe him as wearing joggers; tapered from the knee down, with quite a loose side pocket that he put something into on spidercam and a fleece top, not a jacket at all.
My comments were basically just to respond to @Steve2021 's request for thoughts.

Pretty sure on spider cam - he's NOT wearing joggers

 

[Officer Dibble]

Did he?
I thought he said he was still practising driving, or words to that effect. I'd be surprised if he's driving around without a license, although he does seem dangerously drawn to risk taking.

Can anyone clarify this?

 

[Officer Dibble]

I don’t know if he is a very simple man or not; I think he might be.

If he is though it will be clear that he is to the jury. Likewise, if they see him as sophisticated, cunning or manipulative that will likely come across too.

I would say more a compulsive liar JMO

 

[Deckard]

The scenario above may assuage fears some may have of the abrupt escalation from his previous crimes.

 

[Officer Dibble]

We have seen from the Croda video that even in the early hours of the morning there is the occasional person who walks or cycles along Oak Road. Unless the sex was truly consensual, which I consider preposterous, is it conceivable PW would rape poor Libby by the side of the road when if anyone came along in the 7.5 minutes he was there he'd be done for? Even if he fled his car number etc would be clocked by the passer by. I'm increasingly feeling he must be lying again and that he did enter the park.

Yes agree but we need to remember he gets off on being an exhibitionist too. Though I do think he entered the park with her. JMO

 

[Skigh]

Can anyone clarify this?

The only the I can think of is that he still just had a European licence and needs to take a test to get a British one.

 

[mrazda71]

I don't believe he is a simple man at all. In fact, I think he is pretty clever and devious because until he was looked into by the police regarding Libby no one was even aware of his previous crimes some of which were pretty brazen!

RSBM

Sorry to disagree but, I don't think that this does show that Relowicz is clever or devious - to me it shows only that A, he was arrogant and unperturbed by being seen by anyone and B, more importantly, that society (some of this crimes weren't reported at the time, how many more were never reported at all) and the police do not take crimes like his seriously. They're viewed as less serious because 'no one is physically harmed' - negating the mental and emotional trauma that victims suffer.

 

[Officer Dibble]

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.
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?

SBM: I'd forgotten we had endlessly debated what PR put on the back seat of the car from spider cam when Libby was still missing. It must be her jacket like you say. So when he allegedly cleaned his car the next day was the jacket still there and did he dispose of it then OR during one of his after bath middle of the night prowls back to the park had he remembered the jacket, took it with him and put it in the river? JMO

 

[Sooty]

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

 

[PitchforkRed]

Can anyone clarify this?

IIRC it was in the police interview when he said he was "still learning" to drive. Maybe he meant that he was "still learning" his way around the streets, but was obviously getting plenty of practice in at night.

 

[Sarahjo]

Does anyone know off hand how many of his previous night time pleasurings were reported before Libby went missing? Did the police have a folder full of reports or were most of these reported after his arrest?

it’s clear they connected him to Libby from the numerous CCTV cameras he was caught on so surely if any of these previous crimes were reported and investigated at the time he would have been picked up doing them on CCTV also.. I’m just thinking if they were reported and investigated he might not have even been out prowling the streets that night but rather banged up already.

 

[bos]

Pretty sure on spider cam - he's NOT wearing joggers

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)

 

[Ruthbullock]

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 agree, it’s not a perfect fit of evidence. The 7.5 minutes is the time his car was parked up. The screaming begins at 12.14 and his car is pulling away at 12.19 and is in Beverley Road CCTV at 12.20.

 

[JosieJo]

We have seen from the Croda video that even in the early hours of the morning there is the occasional person who walks or cycles along Oak Road. Unless the sex was truly consensual, which I consider preposterous, is it conceivable PW would rape poor Libby by the side of the road when if anyone came along in the 7.5 minutes he was there he'd be done for? Even if he fled his car number etc would be clocked by the passer by. I'm increasingly feeling he must be lying again and that he did enter the park.

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