GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #24

[porkypies]

I struggle to understand why he’d think “I’ll do that later”. Unless he was disturbed by something.

I think he would have been very disturbed if a fox started to scream at that point.

 

[tigerowl]

Although a young man could carry a struggling woman ..or drag ...it absolutely would slow him down ...its impossible it would not hamper

Regards the 7.5 min if they stayed outside the park...I truly do not see the time itself as a problem...if the car had been there half an hour or more I'd worry ...but 7.5 min when he claims the went for a pee before any contact then after she was sick and there was a "row" ..he didn't give time frames or were there gaps in between these events..its not as if there is a gap of an hour to fill?

I agree. I don't think 7.5 minutes is any length of time to get a drunk person out of car, defend against a struggle and rape them. Even if the weeing and vomiting is all lies. If the timeframe had them in this location just a few minutes longer, I would have no doubt that he killed her and put her in the river. I would consider it open and shut. He is the last person to see her, his DNA is in her body, she wasn't in a state to consent and he would have had enough time to get her through the park and into the river.

The fact that I absolutely do not believe it is possible to do that in 7.5 minutes is what makes me think there must have been another outcome. I know many people have no concerns about the timeline but I have seen that path and river with my very own eyes many, many times. I cannot find it even 5% believable that he could have got an unwilling person out of car, through a gate, across 300ish m of park, then 50ish m through the tress, over the hilly type bit, to the bank, into the river and then get back to his car. Fitting in a rape and murder in between and maintaining the presence of mind to do that without leaving any evidence at all.

 

[Newthoughts]

I thought that too, drives very normally. I watched that a bit stumped tbh!





Remember it may not be that she was raped near immediately after them leaving the car though. It may have been 2/3 mins in after being frogmarched to the park (just as an example). There’s a lot of discussions and debates which is great but the timeline might not be as clear cut as •parks car
•rape
•runs into (or doesn’t) the park/playing fields

They may have parked and he’s tried it on on the car, she gets out and starts walking. Does he catch up, even apologising walking her into the orpf passing the bench. Then assaults her? Who knows....I’m just making this up but it could be a plausible theory.
Sadly these are just theories that we are all throwing out there

I’ll be honest if I was a juror I’d definitely be caught up on the time differences of the ‘screams’ and that some were heard after PR had left oak road. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t weigh up both sides.
These also may be people who have never heard of/heard little of this case. If I was in those camps I’d definitely have to consider all evidence, PR being a liar and sexual deviant aside, to make such a huge choice in guilty or not guilty.

I'm going on the premise that his defence does not have him in the park at all. Therefore I can't assume a defence based on him going into the park.

His sexual deviancy has been allowed in court.

I go with the sighting of a man and the other evidence.

The screams don't add up because neither witness heard two sets of screams

 

[mrjitty]

The debate between @Mommysleuth11 and @Newthoughts to me raises an interesting legal point. As the overriding task is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt i imagine as a matter of law the interpretation of the former is correct, that the jury can consider a scenario that would be favourable to the defendant even if it's pure speculation on their part, and not only has no evidence to support it been adduced but the evidence from the defendant specifically excludes for it. In practice however I suspect some will prefer to follow the logic of @Newthoughts


The problem with telling one lie after another is that at some point members of the jury may think to themselves, I wasn't born yesterday, not only I don't believe you but if you're telling me one thing the truth is bound to be other.

This is a great question and gets into the correct handling of circumstantial evidence.

The Jury should first ask itself what facts it believes have been proven. Not beyond reasonable doubt. Just what facts it accepts.

Then it should ask what can be inferred from those facts, viewed all together. This is because multiple facts going in the same direction make a conclusion more likely.

So for example a jury might find that PR must have taken Libby into the park, that she was screaming, and that the man seen leaving was most likely PR. But they might also say, we just can't exclude that he left her alive in the park.

What they shouldn't do is speculate explanations for individual facts one by one. So IMO it is not legitimate to say oh the witness was incorrect he heard foxes - as a way to reconcile things/

This is what concerns me about the defence case - it verges on wild speculation

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I don’t think that would particularly have mattered- her choices seemed to be run through an open pedestrian gate into the playing fields, run down the back alley of a load of houses (no better in my opinion), or run down a road which didn’t appear to have anything either side and potentially opened LS up to being followed by car

Or Claremont, which to me looks right up Beresford. I am not saying it is not impossible that Libby went into the park, I am just saying I think since she appeared to stay on a sidewalk/roadway area prior to PR taking her to the park, I would think she would head to the same type of area. When she walked into the old convent (forget name) she did not stay long. Was it dark in there? Did she prefer the street area? Was PR harassing? We do not know any of this so we are surmising/guessing. MOO is she would not go in the park. And if she did, she would come back out quickly. I think PR took her in the park. MOO
Edit for missing word and because I Forgot to add Edit.

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding your first point. I've seen lads pick up their girlfriends and carry them. He'd 14 stone and he's 24 and most telling of all his defence did not dwell on it which I assumed they would. Locals are divided

But you think 7.5 minutes is fine in silent outside the park go for it.

But no matter how capable a person it would slow them down ...as in these lads you have seen pick up their girlfriends would have ran slower than if they were running alone

Problem here is the distance in the timeframe is tight based on someone running alone

To be fair we have no idea how much time the defence spent on it ...we certainly knew they brought it up ...the fact that the prosecution themselves brought it up also suggests its problematic

To be honest both presented versions have their own difficulties...neither are spot on
But this aside it still has to be asked have the prosecution made the jury sure ...it appears not as yet.. ..even with them hearing far more than us

 

[Steve2021]

Yup, I have ashamedly been in some terrible drunken States when I was much younger. I made decisions that I was a) not aware of making and b) when the fog finally lifted (this could be days/weeks/months later) even i questioned, what the hell made me do that, what WAS I thinking?
Absolutely no logic or rationality to some of the plain stupid things I have done and damn right dangerous situations I have put myself in.

I'm not saying this at all relates to Libby, just that its almost impossible for any of us to guess what her decision making MAY have been.

I'm struggling to accept this argument that she was so out of it she was incapable of any lucid thought, but I'll defer to those of you who've lived such experiences. But if we do accept it surely that would rule out suicide rather than rule it in. Surely to commit suicide requires very clear thoughts, you don't do it by accident?

 

[tigerowl]

I think she ended up in the river at her own hand but I don't necessarily think it as suicide. More likely distress, delirium, incoherence and trauma leading to a nasty accident or a spilt second decision to put herself in.

Edited to clarify - what I mean is I don't think she went to the river intending to kill herself. I think it's possible that she stumbled there in her terrible state and either fell in or made a split second decision that the river was a better option than dealing with what happened to her.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think she ended up in the river at her own hand but I don't necessarily think it as suicide. More likely distress, delirium, incoherence and trauma leading to a nasty accident or a spilt second decision to put herself in.

Edited to clarify - what I mean is I don't think she went to the river intending to kill herself. I think it's possible that she stumbled there in her terrible state and either fell in or made a split second decision that the river was a better option than dealing with what happened to her.

I’d be interested to know what the river looks like as you approach it. I recall another local saying that lights on the factories were reflected in the water. Could it have looked like a “safe” area to run to?

Basically, have any of you paid a visit there at night?

 

[tigerowl]

I have never been to that exact spot of the river at night but we used to live down Silverdale Road which is along there going towards Sutton Road bridge and you can access the river from the bottom of the next street (or you could in the 90s, anyway) which puts you near the other end of the playing field and we used to go down to the river as teens on a night. I now live nearer to Libby's bench and have driven over the river at Stoneferry bridge 1000s of times at night.

At both points there are lots of lights from the factories along the opposite banks. They are not particularly dark areas and there always seems to be a reasonable amount of light around the river unless it was one of those 'really dark' nights so it could have looked 'safe' to Libby. It would have certainly looked more appealing than the hilly tree bit she has to get through to reach the riverbank. That would have definitely been dark and scary. It's only a small area but if she was disorientated it might have seemed bigger and she could well have looked towards the light and made her way there.

 

[Catsarse]

I'm going on the premise that his defence does not have him in the park at all. Therefore I can't assume a defence based on him going into the park.

His sexual deviancy has been allowed in court.

I go with the sighting of a man and the other evidence.

The screams don't add up because neither witness heard two sets of screams

I know his sexual deviancy has been allowed in court. What I’m saying is, if I were a juror, knowing that I would still have to put that aside to weigh up the evidence presented for this case to make a judgement of guilty or not guilty to murder.

Also I never commented about the amount of sets of screams, I said they were reported at different times. Again, if I were a juror, I would HAVE to consider this.

I have my own thoughts on this case but that’s because I’ve been on here two years and as a local, heard a small amount of gossip in the beginning during the searches.
But as a juror, I know I definitely wouldn’t just be jumping to immediate guilty on both counts because there is conflicting evidence. The defence witnesses place the screams at a time when it’s proven PR is nowhere near orpf.
There could be a chance that he didn’t put her body in the water. A lot of us have thoughts on what could have happened, some don’t believe there’s enough time, others think there’s plenty. It’s a huge, huge decision to be making.

 

[porkypies]

Can you send me the link to the part when the expert witness said she was in survival mode please? and the reference to drops in glycogen and diverting resources? I didn’t see that so would be interested to re read it if I’ve missed it.

And also the evidence that it's easy to commit suicide by 'walking under a bus'

 

[Steve2021]

Can the jury consider a scenario favourable to the defendant that the defence hasn't put before them tho?

Wouldn't that leave the system open to all sorts of abuse because you could then imagine any scenario within the park that PR hadn't thought of and neither has his defence?

Surely doubt has to be reasonable and bound by what you've been told?

So my doubts about PRs story are partly based on me seriously believing that Libby would struggle to get into that river in her state from outside the park. Given everything we know.

I could imagine PR taking her into the park and that is favourable to him IMO. It alleviates my doubts.

But that hasn't been given to me as an option so why should I make it up?

MrJitty may be able to clarify if I'm right on this, and rather more succinctly...

"Can the jury consider a scenario favourable to the defendant that the defence hasn't put before them tho?"

I'm sorry to say and I am not sure I agree with it but I think it's almost inevitable they can.

It'd be totally different in a civil case. The judgment there would be on the pleadings, the documents by which the parties set out clearly the details they rely upon. They wouldn't get far trying to plead alternative versions of what it was they'd done. Moreso the judge will only base his decision on the arguments. Generally if they haven't argued it he won't consider it even if he's thought of it and he would make a different decision if they had.

"Wouldn't that leave the system open to all sorts of abuse because you could then imagine any scenario within the park that PR hadn't thought of and neither has his defence?"

I'm not sure that follows.

What is open to abuse is the defence knowing what the prosecution case is ahead of trial and them not knowing his, and him hearing their witnesses in court before he gives his evidence...thus enabling him to fabricate his to his advantage.

"Surely doubt has to be reasonable and bound by what you've been told?"

Reasonable yes, bound by what you've been told I think no. And there I think we have the nub of the problem in this case.

 

[tigerowl]

I know his sexual deviancy has been allowed in court. What I’m saying is, if I were a juror, knowing that I would still have to put that aside to weigh up the evidence presented for this case to make a judgement of guilty or not guilty to murder.

Also I never commented about the amount of sets of screams, I said they were reported at different times. Again, if I were a juror, I would HAVE to consider this.

I have my own thoughts on this case but that’s because I’ve been on here two years and as a local, heard a small amount of gossip in the beginning during the searches.
But as a juror, I know I definitely wouldn’t just be jumping to immediate guilty on both counts because there is conflicting evidence. The defence witnesses place the screams at a time when it’s proven PR is nowhere near orpf.
There could be a chance that he didn’t put her body in the water. A lot of us have thoughts on what could have happened, some don’t believe there’s enough time, others think there’s plenty. It’s a huge, huge decision to be making.

Are you local/local to the Newland area? I only ask as I've been wondering about people's awareness of PRs previous crimes at the time they were happening. I have read on here that people in the local communites knew there was a perv on the loose and there was even an e-fit. I never heard anything about it so wondered if this was true and I missed it or if its bad press reporting.

 

[Tortoise]

posting again in case not everyone here is aware we have a poll.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/amended-poll-uk-libby-squire.558397/

 

[sundaaaay]

He likely attempted to sexually assault her in the car which caused her to get out and run, but he caught up and continued the assault, muffling her screams and cries for help she manages to scratch him which sends him into a rage and he kills her and runs off.

I find how he got her into the park so mysterious. Part of me wonders did he suggest they go into the park and she obliged. When they first met he would have seemed like a gentleman, and the light dusting of snow meant the park didn’t look dark or scary that night. In fact it may have seemed appealing although I understand she was cold. The witnesses didn’t hear screams on oak road which probably would have happened if there was a struggle and LS did chose to not go home, possibly because she didn’t want her night to end after being rejected from the nightclub. An offer such as a few of my friends are hanging out by the boathouse for example may have been a tempting offer at the time. Also it was known as a hangout area which is why one of the witnesses didn’t call the police when he heard the screams.

 

[Dotta]

If it wasn't for my doubt on the timescales anyway, I wouldn't dismiss his story (lies) as simply unhelpful to drawing conclusions but would absolutely draw inference from them as to his guilt.

I struggle to see how he has managed to do all that was needed in such a short time window and his later visit for me doesn't add anything in that he would have needed to run all the way to the bank and back to even have around a minute there, again thats not for me a reasonable timescale to achieve very much and would rely on him running all the way there and back which would limit his physical ability anyway.
Also the lack of forensic evidence of cause if death doesn't give any clues as to what happened in that time, she may have been asphyxiation, may have drowned may have succumbed to hypothermia.
I just think its impossible to find one set if circumstances more favourable than any other. I don't know what happened, I would have to guess massively and fill in too many gaps of information I just don't have.
I don't know if its my brains very black and white thinking but I can't find a scenario that fits except he possibly raped her in the park and left her to stumble off and she accidentally went into the river. Anything else would be pure guesswork and wild speculation on my part as I don't feel the prosecution have shown anything that PROVES otherwise.

I really wanted him to be guilty and before the trial began I would have bet my life on it.

I agree. Occam's Razor=the simplest hyphotesis is the right one. Besides, the criminal ALWAYS leaves sth in the crime scene - where any evidence found in the park? And ALWAYS takes sth from the scene of crime with him. And yes - his trousers soiled by grass - but grass from the scene of rape.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I agree. Occam's Razor=the simplest hyphotesis is the right one. Besides, the criminal ALWAYS leaves sth in the crime scene - where any evidence found in the park? And ALWAYS takes sth from the scene of crime with him. And yes - his trousers soiled by grass - but grass from the scene of rape.

We do not know about the clothes he had on when he took Libby to the park. He washed them.

 

[Dotta]

We do not know about the clothes he had on when he took Libby to the park. He washed them.

But they were stained by grass even after washing. That's what I understood.

 

[HLC35]

But they were stained by grass even after washing. That's what I understood.

Yes the forensic team took his jeans from his home a couple of days after he was arrested and traces of grass were later found on the fabric. I think that implied it was from visit two to the park; ie the (possible) rape. On his third visit and when he was stalking the streets again I believe he was wearing jogging bottoms