UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #20

[mrjitty]

I thought I would have a stab at the prosecution summing up, assuming accused does not testify.

For me the key will be stressing the correct way to approach circumstantial evidence. Critical is the jury is not allowed to speculate away each piece of circumstantial evidence. Rather we ask what evidence is accepted, and then based on the entire net of evidence, what we can infer.

So first the jury must decide what pieces of evidence it accepts. For me - a non exhaustive list is as follows.

1. The victim was too drunk to consent to sex, vulnerable, and asking to go home (multiple witnesses)
2. The accused was lurking in the area for the purpose of sex offences (no credible alibi)
3. The accused has a long history of sex offending in the area
4. The accused had cased out Oak Park that night - for no credible reason
5. The accused identified the victim, and stalked her
6. The accused placed the victim in his vehicle unwillingly (watch on the ground)
7. The accused took the victim to Oak Park for the purpose of rape (no other credible reason)
8. The accused was seen arriving with the victim and leaving without the victim (CCTV)
9. The victim was heard screaming for an extended period (multiple witnesses)
10. The accused raped the victim in Oak Park (DNA+Scratches)
11. The accused returned to check for incriminating evidence - no credible explanation
12. The accused cleaned his vehicle immediately after - no credible explanation unless he at least raped libby
13. The accused gave exculpatory versions to friends to explain scratches/presence in vehicle before he had reason to think Libby would not turn up - guilty knowledge
14. The accused lied to police
15. The accused did not disclose key evidence he ought to have disclosed if he wants to rely on it at trial - namely he had sex with the victim (DNA)
16. The accused at no time gave a credible account of how he had consensual sex with libby before leaving her in the park
17. Precise cause of death cannot be shown
18. The victim died shortly after her rape
19. The victim has a history of mental instability/suicidal tendencies.

.... (I am sure I have missed stuff off!)

Obvious and logical inferences to be drawn

• The accused was lurking in the streets looking for an opportunity to offend. This is a logical conclusion based on his prior history, and his lack of any credible reason for his presence
• The accused identified Libby as a mark he could take advantage of/rape - this was premeditated
• The accused intentionally took the victim to a preselected & secluded site (drone/prior visit)
• The accused raped the victim (DNA + screams)
• The screams indicate he intentionally committed a crime and lied about it to police when he must have heard them - beyond any doubt (multiple witnesses)
• The accused knows absolutely what happened after the rape - but so far refuses to given an honest account - therefore his statements should be disregarded as fabricated unless independently verified.
• The accused never presented any version where he raped the victim, and she went in the water by accident - and as he is unwilling to say this, it remains speculative
• The accused, having violently raped the victim had a motive to silence her.
• It is surely too coincidental, that in such circumstances, that the victim ends up in the river when there exists no evidence that she was entertaining suicidal thoughts that night, and the accused has not told us her state of mind following the rape.
• If the accused had left the scene, it remains speculative how Libby would then later "accidentally" end up in the river or how she would not get out again - unless she had decided to drown herself
• The accused possessed guilty knowledge immediately following the rape that Libby would not be turning up... returning to the crime scene hours later (why would you think she would still be there?), cleaning car, exculpatory versions to friends ... yet at that time, surely it was a good possibility Libby would turn up?
• The timing seems fast, but lacking any other reasonable explanation, what we are left with, is most likely what happened

Conclusion: Guilty

 

[catgreen]

DBM duplicate

 

[Newthoughts]

what I struggle with from the pathologist, and maybe he was questioned on this by the defence, is that drowning is a form of asphyxiation. How did he come to the conclusion that drowning was unlikely? After 7 weeks in the water her body would be filled with fluids and gases from decomposition and so would be hard to come to that conclusion IMO - I am wondering if the defence can bring in their own expert on this?
Also, @Newthoughts , I’m curious how do you think PR got her body far enough into the water? If someone attempted to throw a dead body into a river from a bank it would likely just drop a short way from their feet. MOO

Well you have the same problem as with Libby getting into the river except this time you've got a large, adrenaline pumped man - who it has now been confirmed worked as a butcher - rather than a drunk and hypothermic girl who would find it difficult to run. If he worked in the place I think he worked it processes pork products and seems to have its own abattoir so it is quite possible he was used to hauling around pig carcasses that would be heavier than Libby. Then kick and push till she's in far enough. Return and check if necessary.

His jeans had been washed but there were grass stains

His car had been cleaned.

 

[catgreen]

what I struggle with from the pathologist, and maybe he was questioned on this by the defence, is that drowning is a form of asphyxiation. How did he come to the conclusion that drowning was unlikely? After 7 weeks in the water her body would be filled with fluids and gases from decomposition and so would be hard to come to that conclusion IMO - I am wondering if the defence can bring in their own expert on this?
Also, @Newthoughts , I’m curious how do you think PR got her body far enough into the water? If someone attempted to throw a dead body into a river from a bank it would likely just drop a short way from their feet. MOO

I don't mean to be rude but pathology (and forensics) is a highly specialised branch of medicine so I don't think it is unusual that a well trained professional can distinguish the cause rather more easily than the general public might understand it, but I get what you are saying and think he should maybe have been more explicit in what he saw/interpreted

 

[Newthoughts]

Deleted duplicate

 

[Newthoughts]

I don't mean to be rude but pathology (and forensics) is a highly specialised branch of medicine so I don't think it is unusual that a well trained professional can distinguish the cause rather more easily than the general public might understand it, but I get what you are saying and think he should maybe have been more explicit in what he saw/interpreted

Yes and I think we've only heard edited highlights of what he said which included that drowning wouldn't be his likely conclusion.

 

[Newthoughts]

I thought I would have a stab at the prosecution summing up, assuming accused does not testify.

For me the key will be stressing the correct way to approach circumstantial evidence. Critical is the jury is not allowed to speculate away each piece of circumstantial evidence. Rather we ask what evidence is accepted, and then based on the entire net of evidence, what we can infer.

So first the jury must decide what pieces of evidence it accepts. For me - a non exhaustive list is as follows.

1. The victim was too drunk to consent to sex, vulnerable, and asking to go home (multiple witnesses)
2. The accused was lurking in the area for the purpose of sex offences (no credible alibi)
3. The accused has a long history of sex offending in the area
4. The accused had cased out Oak Park that night - for no credible reason
5. The accused identified the victim, and stalked her
6. The accused placed the victim in his vehicle unwillingly (watch on the ground)
7. The accused took the victim to Oak Park for the purpose of rape (no other credible reason)
8. The accused was seen arriving with the victim and leaving without the victim (CCTV)
9. The victim was heard screaming for an extended period (multiple witnesses)
10. The accused raped the victim in Oak Park (DNA+Scratches)
11. The accused returned to check for incriminating evidence - no credible explanation
12. The accused cleaned his vehicle immediately after - no credible explanation unless he at least raped libby
13. The accused gave exculpatory versions to friends to explain scratches/presence in vehicle before he had reason to think Libby would not turn up - guilty knowledge
14. The accused lied to police
15. The accused did not disclose key evidence he ought to have disclosed if he wants to rely on it at trial - namely he had sex with the victim (DNA)
16. The accused at no time gave a credible account of how he had consensual sex with libby before leaving her in the park
17. Precise cause of death cannot be shown
18. The victim died shortly after her rape
19. The victim has a history of mental instability/suicidal tendencies.

.... (I am sure I have missed stuff off!)

Obvious and logical inferences to be drawn

• The accused was lurking in the streets looking for an opportunity to offend. This is a logical conclusion based on his prior history, and his lack of any credible reason for his presence
• The accused identified Libby as a mark he could take advantage of/rape - this was premeditated
• The accused intentionally took the victim to a preselected & secluded site (drone/prior visit)
• The accused raped the victim (DNA + screams)
• The screams indicate he intentionally committed a crime and lied about it to police when he must have heard them - beyond any doubt (multiple witnesses)
• The accused knows absolutely what happened after the rape - but so far refuses to given an honest account - therefore his statements should be disregarded as fabricated unless independently verified.
• The accused never presented any version where he raped the victim, and she went in the water by accident - and as he is unwilling to say this, it remains speculative
• The accused, having violently raped the victim had a motive to silence her.
• It is surely too coincidental, that in such circumstances, that the victim ends up in the river when there exists no evidence that she was entertaining suicidal thoughts that night, and the accused has not told us her state of mind following the rape.
• If the accused had left the scene, it remains speculative how Libby would then later "accidentally" end up in the river or how she would not get out again - unless she had decided to drown herself
• The accused possessed guilty knowledge immediately following the rape that Libby would not be turning up... returning to the crime scene hours later (why would you think she would still be there?), cleaning car, exculpatory versions to friends ... yet at that time, surely it was a good possibility Libby would turn up?
• The timing seems fast, but lacking any other reasonable explanation, what we are left with, is most likely what happened

Conclusion: Guilty

Brilliantly put. Wish I could be as articulate!

 

[JosieJo]

I think when you read the press write ups (Hull and BBC). you get a much clearer understanding around what the Pathologist said in court ...he uses the word possibility for both drowning and asphyxiation...he also states the cause of death was unknown and that he can't conclude from the post mortem she was killed. Yes he mentioned the small haemorhages that can indicate suffocation (but they can be present in other scenarios)but id imagine the questioning from the prosecution made that point more prominent rather than the pathologist himself
I'm not sure the jury could take anything from the Pathologist report
I think the prosecution also worry about the report by saying he put her in the river "dead or dying" ...of course either amount to murder ...just posting in relation to detail

 

[JosieJo]

Yes and I think we've only heard edited highlights of what he said which included that drowning wouldn't be his likely conclusion.

Wasn't the comment around likely conclusion in relation to defence questioning? ...did he not say something like you will not get me to say drowning is more likely?....or something like that ? ...I may have it totally wrong but that sticks in my head

Was he just not being drawn on "any" more likely conclusion

 

[Newthoughts]

I think when you read the press write ups (Hull and BBC). you get a much clearer understanding around what the Pathologist said in court ...he uses the word possibility for both drowning and asphyxiation...he also states the cause of death was unknown and that he can't conclude from the post mortem she was killed. Yes he mentioned the small haemorhages that can indicate suffocation (but they can be present in other scenarios)but id imagine the questioning from the prosecution made that point more prominent rather than the pathologist himself
I'm not sure the jury could take anything from the Pathologist report
I think the prosecution also worry about the report by saying he put her in the river "dead or dying" ...of course either amount to murder ...just posting in relation to detail

In the absence of conclusive evidence - i.e. that he can categorically state - I suspect he has an opinion. I think the subtle difference in the way he offers asphyxiation and drowning as possible in this report is interesting. Especially if taken with the other evidence.

https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn...-news/libby-squire-murder-trial-death-4914118

 

[Ruthbullock]

Wasn't the comment around likely conclusion in relation to defence questioning? ...did he not say something like you will not get me to say drowning is more likely?....or something like that ? ...I may have it totally wrong but that sticks in my head

Was he just not being drawn on "any" more likely conclusion

He said there was no evidence of small hemorrhages around her mouth, which could be evidence of asphyxia - but added that their absence was "not conclusive".

Dr Lyall said: “It’s not conclusive but is something we look out for. It is like a little bruise but you tend to see lots of them at once around the lips or the eyes.

Dr Lyall told the court there was also no injury found in bone samples taken from Libby's throat - but added that this did not rule out the possibility that she had been strangled, because the small bones are more flexible in young people and therefore less liable to break.

“For that reason, the absence of damage should not be as important a finding - they could be flexible and not fracture even if pressure was applied to the neck,” he said.

He told the court that it was also unclear whether Libby had been alive or not when she entered the water.

But he concluded that Libby's cause of death remained unascertained.

But he said he had looked into other mechanisms that might explain how she died, including drowning, hypothermia or violent assault.

He said: “A subtle asphyxial death remains a possibility, this could be some kind of smothering or neck pressure or a combination of both.”

But he added: “While drowning remains possible I am not prepared to say it is the likely explanation for her death.”

This was said during the prosecutions questioning. Might help clarify our thoughts a bit more, yesterday I posted the response to the defence questioning (it’s also in the article I have linked)
Libby Squire trial hears more details of how Hull student died

 

[JosieJo]

In the absence of conclusive evidence - i.e. that he can categorically state - I suspect he has an opinion. I think the subtle difference in the way he offers asphyxiation and drowning as possible in this report is interesting. Especially if taken with the other evidence.

https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-trial-death-4914118.amp?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQCrABIA==#aoh=16114805051654&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/libby-squire-murder-trial-death-4914118

It does come across that way just slightly imo i do think though we are at risk of also reading what the press want to portray as without the entire court transcript its impossible to say

 

[Sooty]

I think it’s my brain struggling with the ‘murder’ charge when there isn’t a clear cause of death, and hence we can all come up with different scenarios. I do believe however, that if she was frightened enough by him to end up in the water through seeking escape from him, he should still be found guilty, even if she didn’t directly die at his hand. Such a tragic case.

 

[JosieJo]

He said there was no evidence of small hemorrhages around her mouth, which could be evidence of asphyxia - but added that their absence was "not conclusive".

Dr Lyall said: “It’s not conclusive but is something we look out for. It is like a little bruise but you tend to see lots of them at once around the lips or the eyes.

Dr Lyall told the court there was also no injury found in bone samples taken from Libby's throat - but added that this did not rule out the possibility that she had been strangled, because the small bones are more flexible in young people and therefore less liable to break.

“For that reason, the absence of damage should not be as important a finding - they could be flexible and not fracture even if pressure was applied to the neck,” he said.

He told the court that it was also unclear whether Libby had been alive or not when she entered the water.

But he concluded that Libby's cause of death remained unascertained.

But he said he had looked into other mechanisms that might explain how she died, including drowning, hypothermia or violent assault.

He said: “A subtle asphyxial death remains a possibility, this could be some kind of smothering or neck pressure or a combination of both.”

But he added: “While drowning remains possible I am not prepared to say it is the likely explanation for her death.”

This was said during the prosecutions questioning. Might help clarify our thoughts a bit more, yesterday I posted the response to the defence questioning (it’s also in the article I have linked)
Libby Squire trial hears more details of how Hull student died

But he added: “While drowning remains possible I am not prepared to say it is the likely explanation for her death.”

Thanks this may have been what I was thinking of ...not prepared to say it is the likely explanation...is different to ..." its not likely"

 

[Ruthbullock]

Whilst the majority if not all of us have a gut feeling that he is so, so guilty of rape, I think it’s a mixed bag for murder. The case is reminding me of the fact it took so long for the CPS to agree to pressing charges. We all questioned at the time why it was taking so long for him to be charged. I can’t believe the yeast factory didn’t pick anything up on CCTV at the river bank- as the screams witness said it was a clear night with a full moon and he could see across the park. Whilst Libby was mainly wearing dark clothing the Welly CCTV showed she had bare legs and they would contrast on CCTV footage from across the river, Even if it just picked up odd movements in the reeds, one person stumbling in would cause some movement. Someone carrying another body through the reeds and wading through to the clearer water would have created something striking and significant on the CCTV surely. I’m still of the gut feeling she ran/walked/ even crawled and stumbled into the reeds and then was so disorientated she couldn’t get herself back out. Don’t misunderstand me- I believe he should never be freed from jail, just sharing my opinion on what evidence has been presented so far (that we know of).

 

[Vermont24]

530 meters according to prosecution

I suspect that has been misreported, unless it includes the journey from a parked car on Beresford Avenue. There's obviously variations depending on route, but even the furthest possible distance across the playing fields isn't much more than 300m.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I think it’s my brain struggling with the ‘murder’ charge when there isn’t a clear cause of death, and hence we can all come up with different scenarios. I do believe however, that if she was frightened enough by him to end up in the water through seeking escape from him, he should still be found guilty, even if she didn’t directly die at his hand. Such a tragic case.

Completely agree with you, I’m just not sure if that is the case that he can be found guilty of murder, and manslaughter was never put forward . Maybe someone with a bit of legal know how would explain.

 

[JosieJo]

I suspect that has been misreported, unless it includes the journey from a parked car on Beresford Avenue. There's obviously variations depending on route, but even the furthest possible distance across the playing fields isn't much more than 300m.

I measured it on Google maps it is approx 530 metres

 

[Newthoughts]

It does come across that way just slightly imo i do think though we are at risk of also reading what the press want to portray as without the entire court transcript its impossible to say

I imagine that unascertainable death can't be uncommon given many murder victims are found after periods of decomposition so I think the case has to rest on all the evidence taken together - and for me that points to murder because of his actions before and after and the fact that IMO any alternative method resulting in Libby washing into the Humber Estuary makes less sense no matter how hard I try.

Particularly the other experts opinion that she would have found running away difficult. The terrain is difficult. He is very fit. Sober. Full of adrenaline probably. A butcher - Butchers lug carcasses around. Car washing the day after.

Maybe if she'd been found in the pond, or a canal or a different spot where just falling in would be easier would increase my doubts. That location just looks impossible in her state compared to being put there by someone with PRs stature and level of sobriety and fitness.

But even without that I think all the other evidence would convince me it was murder. And the repetirion of the prowling actions later alarm me quite a lot.

 

[JosieJo]

I imagine that unascertainable death can't be uncommon given many murder victims are found after periods of decomposition so I think the case has to rest on all the evidence taken together - and for me that points to murder because of his actions before and after and the fact that IMO any alternative method resulting in Libby washing into the Humber Estuary makes less sense no matter how hard I try.

Particularly the other experts opinion that she would have found running away difficult. The terrain is difficult. He is very fit. Sober. Full of adrenaline probably. A butcher - Butchers lug carcasses around. Car washing the day after.

Maybe if she'd been found in the pond, or a canal or a different spot where just falling in would be easier would increase my doubts. That location just looks impossible in her state compared to being put there by someone with PRs stature and level of sobriety and fitness.

But even without that I think all the other evidence would convince me it was murder. And the repetirion of the prowling actions later alarm me quite a lot.

I totally agree it will be the other evidence that will convict him