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

[Ruthbullock]

If it's true that he stopped the car near the green shed, it's close to the corner of Beresford Road so if she went that way she would soon have seen houses. If it was right at the end of Oak Road by the open gate into the park, then she might not have been aware of the houses as they are quite a distance away, beyond the tenfoot and their gardens. At that time of night there might not be many lights showing from windows.

We saw where he stopped the car and they got out in CCTV- it was shown by a private camera at the rear of the property.

 

[Miss_French]

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.

No, the pathologist put forward 3 possible causes of death and none were 'murder'; he discussed the mechanisms. All 3 - drowning, hypothermia and asphyxia - could have happened without a deliberate intent to kill.

 

[Sooty]

If I had to categorise I would as unlawful act manslaughter

Interested to hear what act do you think caused her death?

 

[bos]

I think as a matter of law you're right. However as alluded to in my last post whether the jury will sufficiently understand this I'm not sure. They may well come in with a preconceived belief that this kind of scenario is exactly what manslaughter is for or should be for, and be unreceptive to being told it's not.

I've just thought, be prepared you all for this. It's coming if PR is found guilty of rape only. Hopefully Libby's family are.

In mitigation Mr Saxby steps up and tells the judge that it's not like this was a case of violent rape. As PR told the court earlier, Libby was all over him. He was conflicted. She was beautiful, naturally like any red bloodied male would he fancied her too, but he also thought of his wife and that he really shouldn't. But he did. He immediately wished he hadn't. Because of his wife. He had no reason to believe Libby was unable to consent. The jury have found as a matter of law otherwise but the fact remains Libby was more than happy at the time and was indeed only upset because he wouldn't stay for more. Not only is it a terrible misfortune for Libby and her family that Libby succumbed to a tragic accident, but PR has suffered terribly because if she hadn't died she wouldn't have dreamt of complaining she had been raped and he wouldn't have faced the terrible worry he's been put to through these proceedings. You just can't imagine as an innocent man how much worry he's had over potentially being convicted of her murder. It's ruined his life and he now needs medication for stress and depression. And anyway it's no different to like every night of the year young men and women meet at clubs and parties, usually worse for wear from drink, one thing leads to another and they end up in bed. Rarely is there any complaint afterwards. It's not that big a deal, it's modern life, just what young people do.

Thankfully the judge won't have been born yesterday and won't see it like that, but I bet he will have a go all the same.

“Because of his wife” seems reasonable if it’s associated with empathy over the hurt & betrayal she’d feel; how he loves her & doesn’t want to inflict that distress on her.

That kind of guilt might reasonably motivate extra effort in the relationship with the spouse to give the illusion of caring/someone who wouldn’t cheat.

In PR’s case he expresses his wife finding out only in terms of negative consequences for him “she’d leave me”. He doesn’t do anything to indicate that he values her or any intimacy with her, anything to stack up “brownie points” that would create doubt as to his likelihood of being unfaithful should allegations arise in future. He does nothing positive that might make his wife reconsider leaving him such as being present & helping with the children.

Instead, he disappears out into a freezing night for a second time having been out for 4 hours earlier. An action likely to arouse more suspicion in his wife should there subsequently be claims of extra marital sex.

The reason for going to ORPF for a 3rd time in order to either protect his wife or through concern for Libby is not believable in the context of his primary motivation of sexual gratification.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Interested to hear what act do you think caused her death?

I think he raped her, she ran off into the park and he went after her (not necessarily running) and she went in the river. He possibly saw this and left without helping, although I also think he could possibly have left without knowing that had happened- which is where my dilemma is.

 

[Sooty]

I think he raped her, she ran off into the park and he went after her (not necessarily running) and she went in the river. He possibly saw this and left without helping, although I also think he could possibly have left without knowing that had happened- which is where my dilemma is.

would this be direct enough for manslaughter?

 

[Challwood]

No, the pathologist put forward 3 possible causes of death and none were 'murder'; he discussed the mechanisms. All 3 - drowning, hypothermia and asphyxia - could have happened without a deliberate intent to kill.

Dr Lyall also said he could not rule out strangulation and that the post mortem had been made harder due to decomposition, adding “There could have been injuries, we just can’t see them”

 

[Cherwell]

We saw where he stopped the car and they got out in CCTV- it was shown by a private camera at the rear of the property.

Whereabouts is it in relation to the green shed?

 

[Legally Bland]

I've linked this upthread but it's worth a read re. manslaughter. It considers 'some harm' as suffering from shock from an incident which led to death.

JM & Anor, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 2293 (07 November 2012)

 

[Newthoughts]

She had no injuries from the rape - that caused death. I included the act of asphyxiation as the dangerous act, unless you believe that could or would be manslaughter?

Why the park - I suspect it's less likely to be seen or attract public intervention. MOO

I believe that would be murder. An act that the perpetrator know would cause harm. No concessions made for things like the victim fighting back or escaping. The perp cannot assume the victim don't struggle.

She did have injuries there is just know way of knowing whether some of them were pre or post mortem.

Some like the lacerations in her mouth caused by blunt trauma were consistent with asphyxiation but the pathologist couldn't say whether pre or post mortem. I struggle to see how they'd occur post mortem but that's my opinion.

She had bruises - one on her arm looking like she'd been gripped which PR wove into story version 5 or 6. Suggesting some truth.

She had other bruising - again cautious about when caused. Including one on her inner thigh which would be difficult to get pre or post mortem by falling.

The pathologist also said there may have been other injuries that had gone with being in water.

And you still have the fact she was in a river that IMO she would struggle to get to in the state she was in with inclines up to it and weeds on the way down.

 

[tigerowl]

If I assume that the witnesses to the screams were right with their timing and SA did see PR leaving the park I think the following happened.

He raped her by the green shed. She then used what strength she had through panic and adrenaline and ran off into the park - her nearest escape route. She went towards the pond and after a few seconds PR followed her as he's not sure what to do. She screamed then and these are probably the screams that SA heard. PR tried to get her to come back and she backed away from him again heading into the park and more in the direction of the river.

At this point PR realised he was in trouble and needed to get out of there so left quickly so she couldn't follow him. This is when SA saw him leaving the park.

Libby realised shortly afterwards that he had gone and she doesn't know where she is. Starts roaming the park slowly and in distress. Screams again and these are what the second witnesses heard.

Eventually, after getting more and more disorientated and upset she ends up at the river and either falls in or in desperation decides the river is a better option than dealing with what just happened and puts herself in.

He goes back later to relive his sexusl joy and see if there is any trace of her. Sees he can't see her in the park so assumes she went home. No police in the area so she can't have reported him. Feels off the hook. Goes about his business on a sexual high for the rest of the evening.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Whereabouts is it in relation to the green shed?

No idea, I thought it was close by, but the pictures shared from google earth indicate otherwise

 

[Newthoughts]

No, the pathologist put forward 3 possible causes of death and none were 'murder'; he discussed the mechanisms. All 3 - drowning, hypothermia and asphyxia - could have happened without a deliberate intent to kill.

The definition of murder is an act that causes harm that could result in death. how do you exclude asphyxiation from that? It also says that the perp cannot use the victims actions such as fighting back, as an excuse.

I would imagine CPS couldn't have charged him otherwise

 

[Ruthbullock]

I believe that would be murder. An act that the perpetrator know would cause harm. No concessions made for things like the victim fighting back or escaping. The perp cannot assume the victim don't struggle.

She did have injuries there is just know way of knowing whether some of them were pre or post mortem.

Some like the lacerations in her mouth caused by blunt trauma were consistent with asphyxiation but the pathologist couldn't say whether pre or post mortem. I struggle to see how they'd occur post mortem but that's my opinion.

She had bruises - one on her arm looking like she'd been gripped which PR wove into story version 5 or 6. Suggesting some truth.

She had other bruising - again cautious about when caused. Including one on her inner thigh which would be difficult to get pre or post mortem by falling.

The pathologist also said there may have been other injuries that had gone with being in water.

And you still have the fact she was in a river that IMO she would struggle to get to in the state she was in with inclines up to it and weeds on the way down.

The pathologist stated they could have occurred post mortem hitting debris in the river- those weren’t his exact words, but it was an acknowledgement he couldn’t say they hadn’t been caused by hitting debris or the riverbed.

 

[JosieJo]

I believe that would be murder. An act that the perpetrator know would cause harm. No concessions made for things like the victim fighting back or escaping. The perp cannot assume the victim don't struggle.

She did have injuries there is just know way of knowing whether some of them were pre or post mortem.

Some like the lacerations in her mouth caused by blunt trauma were consistent with asphyxiation but the pathologist couldn't say whether pre or post mortem. I struggle to see how they'd occur post mortem but that's my opinion.

She had bruises - one on her arm looking like she'd been gripped which PR wove into story version 5 or 6. Suggesting some truth.

She had other bruising - again cautious about when caused. Including one on her inner thigh which would be difficult to get pre or post mortem by falling.

The pathologist also said there may have been other injuries that had gone with being in water.

And you still have the fact she was in a river that IMO she would struggle to get to in the state she was in with inclines up to it and weeds on the way down.

None of the above were clear ...the pathologist said no idea when or how ....didn'teven give any opinion on likelihood..so how can we use injuries that may not be anything to do with PR

 

[Newthoughts]

None of the above were clear ...the pathologist said no idea when pr how ...so how can we use injuries that may not be anything to do with PR

Yes but that's not 'no injuries' which is what was said.

She had injuries we don't know when they occurred. But they were listed.

 

[Dotta]

Both roads must have looked terrifying at night - deserted and leading nowhere. Stuff from horrors!

 

[Ruthbullock]

If I assume that the witnesses to the screams were right with their timing and SA did see PR leaving the park I think the following happened.

He raped her by the green shed. She then used what strength she had through panic and adrenaline and ran off into the park - her nearest escape route. She went towards the pond and after a few seconds PR followed her as he's not sure what to do. She screamed then and these are probably the screams that SA heard. PR tried to get her to come back and she backed away from him again heading into the park and more in the direction of the river.

At this point PR realised he was in trouble and needed to get out of there so left quickly so she couldn't follow him. This is when SA saw him leaving the park.

Libby realised shortly afterwards that he had gone and she doesn't know where she is. Starts roaming the park slowly and in distress. Screams again and these are what the second witnesses heard.

Eventually, after getting more and more disorientated and upset she ends up at the river and either falls in or in desperation decides the river is a better option than dealing with what just happened and puts herself in.

He goes back later to relive his sexusl joy and see if there is any trace of her. Sees he can't see her in the park so assumes she went home. No police in the area so she can't have reported him. Feels off the hook. Goes about his business on a sexual high for the rest of the evening.

Tragically I agree

 

[JosieJo]

]No idea, I thought it was close by, but the pictures shared form google earth indicate otherwise[/QUOTE]

Its one of the houses that the gardens back on to Oak rd i believe..about half way down i think ...there have been photos pinpointing it but I can't find them

 

[Newthoughts]

If I assume that the witnesses to the screams were right with their timing and SA did see PR leaving the park I think the following happened.

He raped her by the green shed. She then used what strength she had through panic and adrenaline and ran off into the park - her nearest escape route. She went towards the pond and after a few seconds PR followed her as he's not sure what to do. She screamed then and these are probably the screams that SA heard. PR tried to get her to come back and she backed away from him again heading into the park and more in the direction of the river.

At this point PR realised he was in trouble and needed to get out of there so left quickly so she couldn't follow him. This is when SA saw him leaving the park.

Libby realised shortly afterwards that he had gone and she doesn't know where she is. Starts roaming the park slowly and in distress. Screams again and these are what the second witnesses heard.

Eventually, after getting more and more disorientated and upset she ends up at the river and either falls in or in desperation decides the river is a better option than dealing with what just happened and puts herself in.

He goes back later to relive his sexusl joy and see if there is any trace of her. Sees he can't see her in the park so assumes she went home. No police in the area so she can't have reported him. Feels off the hook. Goes about his business on a sexual high for the rest of the evening.

Her not reporting him is a big if. A big risk that she is still being examined. That it took a while to get to safety. To call the police

There is also the big risk she's still alive

Why not say he had sex and left her safely