UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19

[Newthoughts]

“he drove along and she started to undress herself and started taking off her pants“
is what one of PR’s friends said he told him - from that, it can’t definitively be said that she hadn’t taken anything else off before the pants.

As nobody was there to obtain Libby’s core temperature, I don’t think anyone can definitively say to what degree hypothermia was present.

I did think of that but:

I think she'd have started with her jacket. Or easier things. Undressing occurs at the final stages of hypothermia as people 'paradoxically' try to cool down.

I think therefore she'd be starting with her jacket or top. I don't think she'd really be aware of clothing she couldn't see. Nor would she be making sexual advances.

He says somewhere that she takes them with her. By paradoxical undressing she'd be trying to burrow into something not picking up her pants and walking off

I think the comment about pants is specifically to explain their absence. I guess that's all he removed

I think it's very difficult to remove your pants in the front seat of a moving car whilst drunk. I've tried to get changed in a stationary car whilst sober and it's very difficult. We're sure she was only ever in the front seat of his car

I don't think she was near that final stages as she was upset enough to scream.

Plus no obvious typical signs of dying of hypothermia were found post mortem. By the time of paradoxical undressing I think brain centres are certainly shutting down hence the loss of awareness of temp. I think that would be a sign post mortem.

But I do agree about grains of truth in testimony. In this case it was her wanting to go home to her mum. Just doesn't seem like something PR would invent. And it ties in with what we now know but he didn't then

 

[mrazda71]

“he drove along and she started to undress herself and started taking off her pants“
is what one of PR’s friends said he told him - from that, it can’t definitively be said that she hadn’t taken anything else off before the pants.

As nobody was there to obtain Libby’s core temperature, I don’t think anyone can definitively say to what degree hypothermia was present.

The autopsy can say to what degree of Hypothermia Libby was suffering.

 

[astheworldfallsdown]

Does anyone think he will testify?

I go back and forth. I assume he'll be advised not to. In his interviews he comes across as smug and arrogant so he might just get up there thinking he can fool the jury into thinking he's just a poor innocent. JMO

 

[VicBlazey]

Does anyone think he will testify?

It absolutely wouldn’t surprise me. He is so brazen, I think he will protest his innocence until the bitter end.

 

[scapa]

This, paradoxical undressing, is usually seen in much worse degrees of hypothermia and doesn't usually start and stop with the knickers.

It is, but not always -- I've seen versions of it in less severe cases in clinic and ER over the years when hypothermia was present, and it's something my colleague, who is an ER consultant, also wondered about, so thought I'd mention it. I wasn't sure what was clear or not postmortem, and just thought it might be one of those instances where a partial, awkward truth can be glimpsed in the thicket of otherwise unreliable evidence (from PR).

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Does anyone think he will testify?

I am on the fence. He seems to think he is smarter than the average bear. He left calling cards (his DNA) at crime scenes, did not seem to care if people could describe him in previous offenses. I think he could be arrogant enough to testify. But I would think his attorneys would try to discourage it.

 

[bos]

The autopsy can say to what degree of Hypothermia Libby was suffering.

Indeed; a random on the Internet can’t say with certainty that her hypothermia wasn’t severe enough for paradoxical undressing.

 

[tigerowl]

It's a strange one about him testifying. I wonder if he might actually do it.

The defence must be going to say he left her alive at Oak Road but they must have something up their sleeve to go with the not guilty to rape stance when they know he denied sexual contact but they also know his DNA was found inside Libby. How are they going to spin that?

 

[mrazda71]

Indeed; a random on the Internet can’t say with certainty that her hypothermia wasn’t severe enough for paradoxical undressing.

She can if she's referring to what's already been said in Court

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

I wonder if he will say that his denial of sexual contact was simply that he didn’t want his wife to find out he’d cheated after she came on to him. (Note that I think he is guilty of rape and murder from everything I have read).

 

[tigerowl]

I have a question - if a person is insistent on pleading not guilty to a crime is it 'the law' (I can't think of a better way to say it) that a lawyer must take on his defence and it must go to court?

So lawyers have to come up with something, even if the evidence against is overwhelming??

 

[Deckard]

I am leaning more towards him being guilty of murder. I think he went back to Raglan St to clean himself up. He replayed the night's events for his own gratification and subsequently realised he'd left her underwear with his incriminating DNA still in the park in his rush to exit.

He returned to the scene of the crime to retrieve them at 2:25am. Happy that he'd found them he "relieves" himself on Newland Avenue before returning home.

The evidence of him cleaning the Astra hours after the event when no one should have known Libby was sadly gone speaks volumes.

 

[Chambo1994]

I have a question - if a person is insistent on pleading not guilty to a crime is it 'the law' (I can't think of a better way to say it) that a lawyer must take on his defence and it must go to court?

So lawyers have to come up with something, even if the evidence against is overwhelming??

its the prosecutions case to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence

the defence has to act in the best interest of their client. I’m sure someone will have a more detailed explanation, but I don’t think the question of guilt is asked by defence as they wouldn’t be able to represent if he admitted guilt to them

 

[tigerowl]

Thank you.

 

[Newthoughts]

Indeed; a random on the Internet can’t say with certainty that her hypothermia wasn’t severe enough for paradoxical undressing.

Maybe. The autopsy has said she didn't show typical signs of dying of hypothermia. A critical care doctor has said she showed signs she was hypothermic. It's a very long way from one to the other.

But remember the only statement suggesting she removed her pants was from a liar and a rapist who's already given three versions of events.

 

[Tortoise]

It's a strange one about him testifying. I wonder if he might actually do it.

The defence must be going to say he left her alive at Oak Road but they must have something up their sleeve to go with the not guilty to rape stance when they know he denied sexual contact but they also know his DNA was found inside Libby. How are they going to spin that?

I believe he said "no comment" to all questions about sexual contact, rather than denying it.

 

[JosieJo]

I think the knicker comments are far more likely to do with his actions than any altered behaviour by libby

 

[Kasmeer]

Thank you everyone for all the updates; I'm struggling to keep up so it's really nice to have all the info in one thread, even if I'm usually too far behind to contribute anything

Have to say I'm swinging from one side of the fence to the other and back again regarding the "is 7.5 minutes enough?" question, there's many good points being made on both sides, so I'm torn on what we've heard so far. I'm hoping the prosecution will be able to show that it is indeed possible (or better, probable: just "possible" isn't good enough!), otherwise that may be a sticking point with the jury, as I'm still doubtful myself (I have no doubt that PR's actions caused Libby's death one way or another, but whether it was directly or indirectly is not yet fully proved).

I do like (hmm, poor word choice, maybe "appreciate" works better) the theory from a few of you that Libby herself ran some of the way into the park, that would help with the timeframe a lot, as I'd expect it to cost him a fair bit of that time if he was having to drag a still alive and unwilling woman into the park. Plus as mentioned, it ties in with the witness saying the screams appeared to be moving. Seems the best way to tie things up; it's still a very tight timeframe though, so I hope there's more evidence to come on that one.

 

[Miss_French]

I have a question - if a person is insistent on pleading not guilty to a crime is it 'the law' (I can't think of a better way to say it) that a lawyer must take on his defence and it must go to court?

So lawyers have to come up with something, even if the evidence against is overwhelming??

If someone pleads not guilty to a charge at an arraignment then yes, it will go to trial. However, the defendent does not have to have a lawyer and can defend themselves.

The role of a defence lawyer is twofold; to test the prosecution's evidence and to ensure the defendent has a fair trial. That second part often gets forgotten and is one of the main reasons to have a professional representing you.

 

[Loobyloo]

I believe he said "no comment" to all questions about sexual contact, rather than denying it.

Yes, in the evidence that's been heard so far. But we've not yet been through all five versions of his story. The opening remarks in court indicated that there's also a later version where he claims there was consensual sexual contact (presumably after he was confronted with the DNA evidence).

See this link for the five versions:
Libby Squire trial - the five versions of what happened that night