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

[LucyRocket]

Always difficult, if pleading not guilty, for the accused to then not give evidence in his ( or her ) own defence.

I know Judge will tell Jury to disregard his absence from the witness box, but I would think that is hard to do. Why would a person not want to speak up, if they are not guilty. Language should not be a problem or excuse for him, he has a translator available.

I really can't call whether he will or not, but I definitely hope that he does.

Do you know Alyce, the measure I get of him, I don't think his decision had anything to do with pleading his innocence. Actually, that's not true, I do think he'd want a pop at that too. But even if he's got no chance, I think he'd pass up the opportunity to shave a fraction off his sentence for a guilty plea, to have the opportunity to relive this. See all the footage of that night, hear the details of her body. It sickens me to say it, but I believe that.

 

[Niner]

Straw poll? On the jury, guilty or not guilty?

It's guilty for me at this point.

I'd have to say - guilty...

Another poll :

Will he take the stand?

My gut says yes as I think he still believes he can talk his way out of it

Probably - he's arrogant enough to think he can "turn" the jurors to his side.

 

[JusticeDT]

This incident was certainly well reported and known in the local community at the time of it taking place.

I had not heard all of the details of this incident before today. Aggressive when confronted.

 

[JusticeDT]

This incident was certainly well reported and known in the local community at the time of it taking place.

I had not heard all of the details of this incident before today. Aggressive when confronted.

 

[LucyRocket]

I'm enjoying seeing your thoughts on him testifying. I have no idea, but I think he might. I think he'll have been advised not to. I also think the defence won't take long, or at least it shouldn't. Prosecution was a lot briefer than I thought it would be, as some of you have said, I thought there'd be more time spent on the CCTV and more evidence from electronic devices; internet searches, photographs

 

[mrazda71]

Maybe he found her dead when he went back the second time and disposed of her body? Not defending him as I think he is responsible but i dont think the evidence is very clear cut either way if I am honest.

If he'd left her at X spot in the park then gone back 2.5 hours later ... to that exact spot and found her still there - he certainly didn't spend long trying to check for a pulse, resuscitate her, say 'oh poop! On no! What have done!' before he decided to put her in the water ... 4 minutes.

4 mins there and back is a quick check to me.

 

[JusticeDT]

I'm enjoying seeing your thoughts on him testifying. I have no idea, but I think he might. I think he'll have been advised not to. I also think the defence won't take long, or at least it shouldn't. Prosecution was a lot briefer than I thought it would be, as some of you have said, I thought there'd be more time spent on the CCTV and more evidence from electronic devices; internet searches, photographs

I thought there would be too. Will they do reconstructions at the park for timing purposes? Might take a while if so.

 

[Newthoughts]

Of course, you're right, but I'm concerned that a jury might not convict on probabilities alone.

Juries can only ever convict on probabilities tho. The only person that knows for sure is the offender.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

There is definitely evidence that he raped Libby that night, that can’t be denied. Libby was unable to consent so therefore he raped her.
Now murder, as much as I think he did it (and I hope he’s found guilty of that too) I just don’t see the ‘smoking gun’ so to speak. I believe he did murder her, possibly suffocated with his hands either during or after the rape. I think he should be found guilty because Libby entered that area with him and wasn’t seen leaving, ending up dead. His actions of taking her to that place when he himself has admitted that she ‘just wanted to go home’ is what caused her death. The rape also contributed to her death. Has she not been picked up and raped by PR, Libby would most likely still be alive. The rape lead to murder so I believe yes he is guilty of both. However, I’m not 100% on the laws that will be outlined to the jury before they deliberate. I don’t know if the intent to harm by rape also means he had the same intent for murder. The rape was definitely committed with ‘malice aforethought’ and also intending to do serious harm to Libby. Which in effect means that yes he is guilty of murder because he took her there with the intention of harming her. Whether he intended to murder her or not, he still had bad intentions when he saw Libby that night, but I’m not sure if legally that’s enough for murder? I’m shocked they didn’t go for an additional lesser charge of manslaughter just incase the jury were to be persuaded that he did not intend to kill. I hope they will see it as we do but they do have to stick strictly to the law as it is written.

 

[Newthoughts]

Another poll :

Will he take the stand?

My gut says yes as I think he still believes he can talk his way out of it

I'm a don't know but:

The prosecution said they had heard he would now admit to sexual intercourse after going to Oak Road. I'm guessing the DNA evidence forced that one.

So how does this happen if he has not mentioned it in any police interview? His solicitor can't just say it unchallenged unless it's to plead guilty to rape. Otherwise they could just say anything and nobody could question it

So do the legal folk here think this means he has to take the stand? To say what he omitted?

 

[Skigh]

Evil man pushed victim to suicide attempt after 'horrifying' rape

Victim 'drank herself into oblivion' after evil tenfoot rape

Rapist prowled streets leaving bloodied woman slumped in alley after attack

The MO of this guy is so similar to PR. Same area Beverly road/ Newland avenue too. Cant find a date for his arrest.

I wonder if PR knew this man.

 

[Vera_dci]

My thoughts too. Was PR his friend in the car! Was he the friend who liked to take pictures with PR in Halloween masks! They're similar ages.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Am I right in that our law is the same as the US? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution if so, the defense don’t have to prove anything, they don’t have to put PR on the stand, they don’t have to prove that Libby was alive when he left her. It’s all about whether the prosecution presented enough to satisfy a guilty verdict. I think.

 

[Newthoughts]

There is definitely evidence that he raped Libby that night, that can’t be denied. Libby was unable to consent so therefore he raped her.
Now murder, as much as I think he did it (and I hope he’s found guilty of that too) I just don’t see the ‘smoking gun’ so to speak. I believe he did murder her, possibly suffocated with his hands either during or after the rape. I think he should be found guilty because Libby entered that area with him and wasn’t seen leaving, ending up dead. His actions of taking her to that place when he himself has admitted that she ‘just wanted to go home’ is what caused her death. The rape also contributed to her death. Has she not been picked up and raped by PR, Libby would most likely still be alive. The rape lead to murder so I believe yes he is guilty of both. However, I’m not 100% on the laws that will be outlined to the jury before they deliberate. I don’t know if the intent to harm by rape also means he had the same intent for murder. The rape was definitely committed with ‘malice aforethought’ and also intending to do serious harm to Libby. Which in effect means that yes he is guilty of murder because he took her there with the intention of harming her. Whether he intended to murder her or not, he still had bad intentions when he saw Libby that night, but I’m not sure if legally that’s enough for murder? I’m shocked they didn’t go for an additional lesser charge of manslaughter just incase the jury were to be persuaded that he did not intend to kill. I hope they will see it as we do but they do have to stick strictly to the law as it is written.

You'd have to ask people like @mrjitty but as I understand it Juries can only convict on the basis of the probabilities presented by evidence. And if those probabilities suggest something beyond all reasonable doubt he would be deemed guilty

The prosecution said at the start they didn't have to prove cause of death. Only that she died as a result of a violent attack. At any point during that attack he could have stopped.

 

[Skigh]

My thoughts too. Was PR his friend in the car! Was he the friend who liked to take pictures with PR in Halloween masks! They're similar ages.

I also wondered if it was PR in the car.
Did find this :

Crown Court heard Daubaras had been "circling the town" with a friend "to entertain themselves" in June 2017.

 

[Vera_dci]

Crikey! It certainly wasn't a safe area for women at that time. Could he be bike man!

 

[Stumpyaura]

Verdict: guilty
Will he take the stand?: there's a good chance. His pattern of offending shows an arrogant nature, not someone to run away when spotted, and also his approach in his police interviews at times and trying to be nonchalant. If he does, he's as deluded as Ian Stewart was when he took the stand with his ridiculous lies with the arrogance of a man who thinks he's got a chance of swaying the jury

 

[Officer Dibble]

Straw poll? On the jury, guilty or not guilty?

It's guilty for me at this point.

Guilty of what though?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

You'd have to ask people like @mrjitty but as I understand it Juries can only convict on the basis of the probabilities presented by evidence. And if those probabilities suggest something beyond all reasonable doubt he would be deemed guilty

The prosecution said at the start they didn't have to prove cause of death. Only that she died as a result of a violent attack. At any point during that attack he could have stopped.

Beyond reasonable doubt. That’s what worries me a little bit here. Because yes there’s an allowance for a ‘reasonable’ amount of doubt but then the evidence doesn’t have to prove unequivocally that he did murder her. I believe the rape will be quick to convict him for. But the lines are blurred on the murder, because even though we know that if PR had taken Libby home that night, she wouldn’t have been found dead in the river. I don’t know if by law that can make him guilty of murder? Then again, if it’s just the most probable and likely scenario then hopefully they’ll have no problem convicting him because there wasn’t another sexual deviant in the area that night that came across Libby, the only one there was PR and the DNA shows that, her being drunk tells us she couldn’t give consent.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Crikey! It certainly wasn't a safe area for women at that time. Could he be bike man!

Do you remember early on in the press the elderly neighbour to PR made reference to two men who shared the car PR used? Unless the wife had short hair and he mistook her for a man?