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

[Sarahjo]

My boyfriend and I were debating what we would do on a jury in a case such as this.

I really cannot see any evidence for murder or manslaughter so I would not want to say guilty. However, he is an awful speciman who is clearly a danger to women so do I say guilty as an opportunity to keep him off the streets as long as possible even though I don't believe it.

It's so difficult to balance what you feel is a moral obligation against what would be right in the eyes of the law.

I think I could reconcile manslaughter in my mind, in know there needs to be a chain such as she ran away to escape him and fell in but even if he did leave her alive on oak road, she wouldn’t have been there had it not been for him so whether she ran to get away from him or stubbled there after he left, he’s responsible.. in my mind, whether or not that would be allowed on a jury though, I don’t know??

 

[JosieJo]

rsbm

I appreciate this is your opinion mrJ, but I take issue with your inferences for any circumstantial evidence of 4, 5 & 6.

It ends at rape for me.

For instance, cleaning his car. He might clean his car if the victim is going to say she was taken in it to be raped.

My interpretation of the knickers story is that he was setting a story for being accused, which is unlikely if he thought the river would take her away and wash away the evidence, and she was no longer alive to say where she entered the river and who she was with.

I don't see what evidence you are seeing for 4 & 5. That's where I get stuck - the possibilities seem to have equal weight.

IMO.

rsbm



Exactly the same for me ...cant get to 4 5 and 6

 

[Sarahjo]

No - in England it has to be 11 out of the 12 (or 10 out of 11 if one juror has had to drop out) for a majority verdict.

(ETA that this is the English system - Scotland has 15 on a jury & allows a simple majority, 8-7)

Scotland also has the Not Proven verdict which would maybe be a help in this case, I think it’s a - well we know you did something but it’s just not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt so we can’t find you guilty but we don’t want to find you not guilty - but I’m not sure of the point of it as it doesn’t carry any sentence or anything, maybe it helps with the double jeopardy law or something..

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

My boyfriend and I were debating what we would do on a jury in a case such as this.

I really cannot see any evidence for murder or manslaughter so I would not want to say guilty. However, he is an awful speciman who is clearly a danger to women so do I say guilty as an opportunity to keep him off the streets as long as possible even though I don't believe it.

It's so difficult to balance what you feel is a moral obligation against what would be right in the eyes of the law.

If you were on the jury you could only rule on the evidence before you. You don't have a 'moral obligation', that is not the job. This is what was put to jury in summing up: put aside all personal feelings and judge only on what has been heard in court.

Agree, there is nothing to suggest murder.

 

[Cherwell]

This is pretty much what I think could be possible too. And that he went back because after he left Libby the more he thought about it he had to know whether she was still there wandering around or laying on the ground or whether it looked as though she had gone home and hopefully might not even remember what happened or if she did wouldn't report it, leaving him off the hook. Locked up his car and took a quick look around the park to make sure she wasn't in there somewhere. Then, feeling reassured, headed off back up to the streets.

I wouldn't have thought her absence would give any reassurance. No guarantee that she wouldn't remember, or that she wasn't reporting it at a police station at that moment.

 

[Sooty]

I have a query on the charges if anyone can help me.
PR was originally arrested on suspicion of abduction.

obviously things developed from that original arrest and the current charges were added.

however, why hasn’t he been charged with kidnap/abduction in addition to rape and murder?

Because to me, it would indicate that the police now regard the act of him taking her to the park (disregarding any possible subsequent events) does not constitute any crime taking place, despite what we all might think about that particular event.

And if that indicates that there was no crime in taking her there, then would it follow that there is no crime (in itself) in leaving her there?


these are my genuine questions, if anyone with knowledge can help?


Edited in an attempt to provide clarity

 

[bos]

I don’t think anyone is saying they’re safe after their first murder and they won’t do it again. I do completely agree with what they’re saying, his behaviour seems like he really hasn’t caused or believes he’s caused a death.
In fact the longer I’m on here the more I’m changing my views
I’m starting to wonder was Libby passed out/very near passed out to the point he had sex with her (of course rape) but he’s sold it to himself that it’s ok?
Has she scratched him or started to struggle to the point he smothers her, making her unconscious and he finished having sex (so sorry to be graphic) and then left her on oak road or in the park?

Of course all my own musings but in this scenario I can see why he’d go back to orpf to see if she was there and then go back out in the prowl to masturbate-does he think she’s walked off and hopes he’s got away with raping her?
I’m just very surprised if he raped and killed Libby, and either put her in the river immediately or on visit no 3, that he’d also then go out prowling and wanking. It does make me wonder if he believed himself Libby was still alive at that point?

All moo imo

There’s a thesis on voyeurism by Cara Wood where she conducted interviews with inmates convicted of voyeuristic offences (who have had some psychological treatment).

One of the themes is how the secrecy involved allows voyeurs to think something didn’t happen in their mind because no one else knows it’s happened. Th

 

[Newthoughts]

If you were on the jury you could only rule on the evidence before you. You don't have a 'moral obligation', that is not the job. This is what was put to jury in summing up: put aside all personal feelings and judge only on what has been heard in court.

Agree, there is nothing to suggest murder.

One of the causes of death put forward by the pathologist was murder. If you take chain of causation expectation that running away could be murder then two causes could be murder

So saying there is nothing to suggest murder isn't completely accurate.

 

[NorthernSoul]

One thing I would like to know - apologies if I have missed it and it has already been clarified. Was anyone else at all seen on the CCTV in between PR's second and third visits to the park either entering or leaving the park or passing the gates or was there literally nobody else around during these hours? I'm not meaning the man who SA saw. People who the police could eliminate completely, maybe a couple, well anyone at all. I'd like to know this because obviously if any person did cross the park between visits 2 and 3, the likelihood of a body laying in the park is reduced.

 

[Zazie]

Re PR's drone, did we get a date for the footage then? The Mirror reports the prosecution as saying it was flown 'a couple of days earlier' but it was not 100% clear (to me) if this meant two days before Libby's disappearance or two days before PR's arrest.

'Frantic' screams heard as Libby Squire was 'taken to playing fields by stalker'

I don't see the need to use a drone to scope out the playing fields - he could easily explore them on foot or look at Google satellite view. But if the footage is from after the murder that might suggest he was checking for signs of Libby's body downstream. Not much seemed to be made of it at trial though, so guessing the footage wasn't that revealing?

 

[Newthoughts]

There’s a thesis on voyeurism by Cara Wood where she conducted interviews with inmates convicted of voyeuristic offences (who have had some psychological treatment).

One of the themes is how the secrecy involved allows voyeurs to think something didn’t happen in their mind because no one else knows it’s happened. Th

I suppose for me he goes beyond the voyeurism I've read about. I agree it's quite often secretive spying on people in some way. But with no obvious desire to be seen.

But he doesn't seem to mind being seen. He's maintained eye contact when he's seen and he's followed women to make sure he masturbates on their doors. And leaving condoms when he hasn't been seen - almost like he needs the women to know he's been there.

 

[Zazie]

One thing I would like to know - apologies if I have missed it and it has already been clarified. Was anyone else at all seen on the CCTV in between PR's second and third visits to the park either entering or leaving the park or passing the gates or was there literally nobody else around during these hours? I'm not meaning the man who SA saw. People who the police could eliminate completely, maybe a couple, well anyone at all. I'd like to know this because obviously if any person did cross the park between visits 2 and 3, the likelihood of a body laying in the park is reduced.

Before PR returns for his third visit (2.25am) the Croda CCTV shows a man in a light coloured T shirt and dark trousers at first running into view on Oak Road then walking out of shot (1.13am) and a figure on a bike cycling along Oak Road towards Clough Road at 1.24am, who is then seen cycling back up Oak Road at 1.34am. Some people on WS thought the cyclist had a bag.

 

[Tortoise]

I have a query on the charges if anyone can help me.
PR was originally arrested on suspicion of abduction.

obviously things developed from that original arrest and the current charges were added.

however, why hasn’t he been charged with kidnap/abduction in addition to rape and murder?

Because to me, it would indicate that the police now regard the act of him taking her to the park (disregarding any possible subsequent events) does not constitute any crime taking place, despite what we all might think about that particular event.

And if that indicates that there was no crime in taking her there, then would it follow that there is no crime (in itself) in leaving her there?

these are my genuine questions, if anyone with knowledge can help?


Edited in an attempt to provide clarity

I see abduction is an aggravating circumstance in the sentencing guidelines to make it a category 1 offence, and wonder if it might be argued, along with taking advantage of Libby's vulnerability.

Rape – Sentencing

I don't know if they would charge it seperately if they needed to prove it?

My interpretation which could be wrong is that the manslaughter charge doesn't rest on leaving her in the park. I read it that there has to be actual harm inflicted on her body during the rape which contributed to her death. But I think the reporter made a bit of a hash of relaying the judge's directions on that part.

MOO

 

[Newthoughts]

Re PR's drone, did we get a date for the footage then? The Mirror reports the prosecution as saying it was flown 'a couple of days earlier' but it was not 100% clear (to me) if this meant two days before Libby's disappearance or two days before PR's arrest.

'Frantic' screams heard as Libby Squire was 'taken to playing fields by stalker'

I don't see the need to use a drone to scope out the playing fields - he could easily explore them on foot or look at Google satellite view. But if the footage is from after the murder that might suggest he was checking for signs of Libby's body downstream. Not much seemed to be made of it at trial though, so guessing the footage wasn't that revealing?

From the prosecution I got the impression it was the 30th. Libby went missing early hours of the 1st so realistically the day before.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Before PR returns for his third visit (2.25am) the Croda CCTV shows a man in a light coloured T shirt and dark trousers at first running into view on Oak Road then walking out of shot (1.13am) and a figure on a bike cycling along Oak Road towards Clough Road at 1.24am, who is then seen cycling back up Oak Road at 1.34am. Some people on WS thought the cyclist had a bag.

Thank you.

 

[Tortoise]

Posting the poll again, for weekend posters

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

 

[Newthoughts]

I’m changing my mind too. If I take out some of the emotion here, I have to admit if I was on the jury there’d be an element of doubt for me. Especially after discussing different scenarios with you all and the defence evidence and witnesses.

No matter what I’d want to believe, I’d have to separate that from what is being presented. Right now, could I be satisfied that I’m 100% sure he raped and murdered her? No I couldn’t be (I was!). Manslaughter I can see but I couldn’t be sat on that jury and say I’m 100% sure he murdered her.

Ive really appreciated everyone’s viewpoints and debates on here, it’s so interesting to see everyone’s differing opinions. It must be so difficult being a jury member on a case like this where there’s not one definite line of actions that’s lead to a persons death.

But I don't think anybody can ever be 100% certain apart from PR. Not in any case ever.

I think we're lucky to have 100% certainty of the outcome because Libby's body was found. Not all cases have that.

We have very, very high likelihood that PR took Libby because CCTV is backed up by other CCTV, her watch and witnesses to a girl fitting her description being there. CCTV then tells us where he took her.

Between those two points we have a very limited realistic number of paths to consider.

As @mrjitty and others have said, we have to weigh up every single thing we know about PR and that night to work out which was likely. To create a coherent picture From his prior offending thru to his later trip out and the rationale for his lies.

For me the man in the park and PRs later offences that night and the nature of his lies to the police are very telling. Coupled with Libby's state.

 

[bos]

I suppose for me he goes beyond the voyeurism I've read about. I agree it's quite often secretive spying on people in some way. But with no obvious desire to be seen.

But he doesn't seem to mind being seen. He's maintained eye contact when he's seen and he's followed women to make sure he masturbates on their doors. And leaving condoms when he hasn't been seen - almost like he needs the women to know he's been there.

Absolutely he has multi-Paraphilias: exhibitionism;voyeurism;fetishism & the calling cards show a level of sadism(via psychological suffering).
My reason for mentioning the voyeurism thesis is has lived experience of offenders which illustrate cognitive distortion/dissonance

 

[Sarahjo]

Before PR returns for his third visit (2.25am) the Croda CCTV shows a man in a light coloured T shirt and dark trousers at first running into view on Oak Road then walking out of shot (1.13am) and a figure on a bike cycling along Oak Road towards Clough Road at 1.24am, who is then seen cycling back up Oak Road at 1.34am. Some people on WS thought the cyclist had a bag.

There was 4 people I think in total, the man, the cyclist and a couple so that surely discounts LS lying unconscious/dead on oak road as surely they would have found her, so she had to have been in the park by that time. We don’t know where these people came from though, did they walk through the park and onto oak road?? who knows....

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Scotland also has the Not Proven verdict which would maybe be a help in this case, I think it’s a - well we know you did something but it’s just not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt so we can’t find you guilty but we don’t want to find you not guilty - but I’m not sure of the point of it as it doesn’t carry any sentence or anything, maybe it helps with the double jeopardy law or something..

In the US all but a few states have unanimous verdict. Even if one juror votes different from the others it is a hung juror. Now the Judge can make them go back to deliberate if he/she feels they did not take enough time or thinks they did not understand something. Also in the US, a defendant decides if they want a jury trial or a trial by judge. Most pick a jury trial.